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.

rshow55 - 03:16pm Mar 31, 2003 EST (# 10838 of 10839)
Can we do a better job of finding truth? YES. Click "rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have done and worked for on this thread.

The Sky Was Falling Baghdad, 2003 by Patrick Graham

War after war of bombings, viewed from the ground. Memoirs from Brian Urquhart (Britain), Ward Just (Vietnam), Flora Brovina (Kosovo) and others http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/30/magazine/30BOMBING.html?pagewanted=all&position=top

- - - - - - - -

How Precise Is Our Bombing? http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/31/opinion/31MON1.html

Incessant boasting about accuracy raises expectations that every bomb will hit its target — and outrage around the world when one doesn't.

- - - - - - - -

The United States and Britain ought to carefully consider what their military situation in Iraq would be if they didn't have (or didn't use) bombing - didn't use aircraft in combat except for direct support of troops.

The "shock and awe" bombing so far has been ineffective enough militarily that they might well have been better off never using anything but direct air support - and might be better off making that transition now. For entirely practical reasons, even setting issues of human sympathy aside. (And we do not set human sympathy aside. )

I've thought a good deal about military matters first and last. Some issues of "military science" are as clear as any in any science. Weapons do what they do. Tactical situations are as they are. Tactical miracles break themselves down to generally well understood kinds - and we can think through our circumstances now.

rshow55 - 09:54pm Mar 19, 2003 EST (# 10234 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.lvb6a8v66fJ.2538041@.f28e622/11780 rshow55 3/19/03 9:54pm , with some modifications in tense, in italics, may be worth repeating.

"Some arguments are over - some decisions have been made - now an invasion is happening.

. D-Day by THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/19/opinion/19FRIE.html

"Whatever else happens, American soldiers won't want for immediate material support, in the ways that were so disastrous in 1917 -

. Mesopotamia .....1917 by Rudyard Kipling http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee74d94/3625

"though plans can go wrong.

"The Bush administration, intentionally or not - may be getting the world much better organized than it has been. If the world does not want the US to be "the world's policeman" it has to organize itself to do some better policing in other ways. The Treaty of Westphalia was a long time ago.

8830 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.lvb6a8v66fJ.2538041@.f28e622/10356

8832 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.lvb6a8v66fJ.2538041@.f28e622/10358

8833 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.lvb6a8v66fJ.2538041@.f28e622/10359

"I hope things go well - in this war - and more broadly. For the whole world. I think that's possible. That will only be possible if people, all over the world, figure out what makes decent sense to them - get right answers - not only in terms of their immediate emotions, but in terms of facts and relations that fit together, and negotiate well enough, often enough.

"I'm concerned, but hopeful.

"I started this year with rshow55 - 8:20am Jan 1, 2003 EST (# 7177 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.lvb6a8v66fJ.2538041@.f28e622/8700 :

" I think this is a year where some lessons are going to have to be learned about stability and function of international systems, in terms of basic requirements of order , symmetry , and harmony - at the levels that make sense - and learned clearly and explicitly enough to produce systems that have these properties by design, not by chance. 10124 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.lvb6a8v66fJ.2538041@.f28e622/11669

". . . . that seems a very bad call. But maybe not.

"It seemed to me then that all it would take, from where we are, would be military results that favor the US-UK forces reas

(1 following message)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense