[F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  /

    Missile Defense

Technology has always found its greatest consumer in a nation's war and defense efforts. Since the last attempts at a "Star Wars" defense system, has technology changed considerably enough to make the latest Missile Defense initiatives more successful? Can such an application of science be successful? Is a militarized space inevitable, necessary or impossible?

Read Debates, a new Web-only feature culled from Readers' Opinions, published every Thursday.

Earliest Messages Previous Messages Recent Messages Outline (765 previous messages)

almarst-2001 - 12:54pm Mar 22, 2002 EST (#766 of 784)

gisterme - "the threat doesn't exist"

However questionable, it might be true.

My point is - the MD will cause the other nations to seek a countermeasures. Not neceserely symmetrical or conventional. The end result will be less security for all.

As I pointed out before, the MD changes the easily calculated MAD into the much less predictable computation having to account the unknown real efficiency of MD. It will be up to the other nation's judgement to select a reliable countermeasure.

The MD will cause the death of strategic arms verification and control regime even among disciplined and espectable nations. Not to mention the small secretive ones.

It will cause a secretive strategic WMD arms race, including the one in Space.

lchic - 12:56pm Mar 22, 2002 EST (#767 of 784)

Homeland or World?

An important question ... the world sees the USA fiasco as being little related to world and much related to USA.

almarst-2001 - 01:02pm Mar 22, 2002 EST (#768 of 784)

"USA fiasco as being little related to world and much related to USA."

It would not be a problem, if the USA would not be on a MISSION of reshaping the world for its like.

This is a very combustive mixture.

rshow55 - 01:11pm Mar 22, 2002 EST (#769 of 784) Delete Message

Progress ! There are some things happening in the world (and on this thread) which indicate that we might get some things to be less ugly, and more safe -- practically.

I was interested in the last posting by gisterme - - both for the good things about it . . . and some of the not-so-good.

I think a lot of what almarst , lchic , and I discussed last year (often helped along by distinguished postings from others) is relevant.

I'll be back about gisterme 3/22/02 12:34pm soon.

lchic - 01:15pm Mar 22, 2002 EST (#770 of 784)

    President John F. Kennedy once toasted all American Nobel Prize winners by saying it was the greatest gathering of intellects at the White House since Thomas Jefferson died there alone! see

rshow55 - 01:39pm Mar 22, 2002 EST (#771 of 784) Delete Message

I was very glad to see MD764 gisterme 3/22/02 12:34pm . . . which quotes my "We know that the MD programs set out in public can't work tactically..." and goes on as follows:

Gisterme: "That's simply not the truth, Robert. I challenge you to back up those words. I know you can't or you would have long all the things you've been saying "can't be done" are gradually coming to pass. Four out of six BMD successes, is the evidence I hold up to refute your claim, Robert.

I've never denied those successes, which are admirable as technical achievements, considered in "pure" terms. But those successes are limited and far, far less than tactical function will require. MD36 rshow55 3/1/02 8:12pm

Gisterme , I know that, busy as you are, you can't read all the postings here. But MD730 rshow55 3/20/02 8:37pm ended with . . . "What do you think, gisterme ?" . . . . Have you read the following?

MD728 rshow55 3/20/02 7:58pm ... MD729 rshow55 3/20/02 8:32pm
MD730 rshow55 3/20/02 8:37pm

Would you, please?

Can I also assume that you're familiar with the existence of the material referred to in MD84 rshow55 3/2/02 10:52am ?

Perhaps we're dealing with some honest mistakes here -- and perhaps some of them are my own. But if so -- it is worthwhile to resolve them, because the stakes are so high.

lchic - 04:40pm Mar 22, 2002 EST (#772 of 784)

Did 'sense' die with Jefferson ?

lchic - 07:46pm Mar 22, 2002 EST (#773 of 784)


    A friendly game of basketball between a US and Afghan team turned violent when spectators kicked a fallen American player and a guard rushing to protect him unintentionally shot two Afghans
    "Until our interior ministry is able to control the crowd security, we should not have these kinds of matches," said Azizi, a consultant for the Kabul Olympic committee and a member of the Afghan basketball federation.
    Marshall, the peacekeeping spokesman, referred questions about whether the Americans or other troops would rethink their goodwill policy to the US embassy, which didn't return repeated calls seeking comment today.
    Not all sporting events between international forces and Afghans have ended violently, however.
    This week, British members of the international peacekeeping force played a cricket match with an Afghan team - complete with cucumber triangle sandwiches, scones and tea. The Afghans were ahead when rain stopped play
Games can be equated with 'tribal' war ... if only the thinking pre match had been this ... mix the players for basket ball into two new teams .. dress them in burkas (wow?!) ... then if lateral slips occurred the consequences might be less dire .. re-configured thinking .. always make the home-guys the 'STARS' .. COACH the home teams ... recall the NewScientist item re 'home ground' advantage.

So what's the moral here wrt Nukes .... yes - sports a positive neutral activity that people can grow through .. whereas Nukes are a negative activity that people need to 'grow out' of!

More Messages Recent Messages (11 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Email to Sysop  Your Preferences

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  / Missile Defense

Home | Site Index | Site Search | Forums | Archives | Shopping

News | Business | International | National | New York Region | NYT Front Page | Obituaries | Politics | Quick News | Sports | Science | Technology/Internet | Weather
Editorial | Op-Ed

Features | Arts | Automobiles | Books | Cartoons | Crossword | Games | Job Market | Living | Magazine | Real Estate | Travel | Week in Review

Help/Feedback | Classifieds | Services | New York Today

Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company