New York Times on the Web Forums Science
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
(1238 previous messages)
- 06:40pm Apr 10, 2002 EST (#1239
4/4/02 1:20pm includes this:
Challenge, questions, and invokation of the need for force:
Comment and response:
3/23/02 2:28am ... MD783-784 rshow55
Perhaps I have been moving slowly. One reason is that I've felt
that things have been moving toward a situation where a lot of
things could get solved. Another reason is that it is essential to
get situations set up where right answers are possible -- rather
than certain to be evaded.
Circumstances are coming into focus where right answers may be
possible -- the credibility of the Bush adminstration outside the
United States may be lower than the credibilty of any other
administration in this century -- for very good reasons. Reasons
that should concern responsible Americans.
Here are questions and issues set out in MD729 rshow55
3/20/02 9:32pm , that don't depend at all on my background, or
on any classified material at all:
The technical questions set out in bold below may seem dry - and
to many people, such as Professor Postol, they seem fully answered
already. But the arguments involved with them haven't been fully set
out by the standards expected in a court of law - - or the standards
that are now possible on the internet, with some organization and
The arguments involved haven't been contested , with technical
questions that required decision decided by very widely respected
judges, for reasons that could themselves be judged.
The issues haven't been illustrated, numerically and pictorially,
to the standards expected in a court of law - with arguments that
would work for real juries.
But these questions could be answered to these high standards,
and answered beyond any reasonable doubt.
With the whole world (and reponsible politicians) watching.
" How technically challenging are the missile
defense programs that have been set out in public (laser and
midcourse interception ) in terms of what is known, and what has
been achieved, in the open engineering and scientific literature?
Are the objectives for these specific kinds of systems compatible
with the laws of physics? To work, these systems have to do
specific things, and do these things together. Are the technical
objectives these systems have to meet reasonable in terms of known
laws of physics, and relevant experience in engineering?
" If function of these systems requires
breakthroughs, compared to previous open literature theory or
experience --- what are these breakthroughs? How do the results
needed compare quantitatively to results that have been achieved
in the open literature by engineers, applied physicists, or other
people who measure carefully? If breakthroughs are required, how
do they compare to test results that have been made available to
These missile defense programs need to be evaluated in a
reasonable tactical context, subject to the countermeasures that can
reasonably be expected and specified.
- 06:44pm Apr 10, 2002 EST (#1240
There would have to be "fights" about these questions --
contractors, and the military, would have to be forced to contest
these issues. - Or accept anwers on a clear nolo contenre basis. If
world leaders wanted to bring this force to bear -- one way or
another -- it could be done -- and pretty gracefully.
These "dry technical answers" would make a practical
difference on larger questions, of concern to all citizens of the
The answers would be clear, and would exist in clear logical
contexts. Contexts that could be set out in "decision trees" such as
the decision making/tree, expert systems set out it MD634 lchic
When the technical answers are clear -- many clear conclusions
will follow about the rationality and good faith of
military-industrial patterns in which the whole world has an
Sometimes, to sort out a mess, you have to get SOME key relations
clarified. It would be possible to clarify these relations. That
done -- conditions would be in place for "breakthrough negotiations"
that are deeply in the interest of the United States of America, and
the rest of the world as well.
Many details about this have already been set out at length on
this thread - and discussed with gisterme , who, at the time,
gave every indication of having discussed these issues with her
New York Times on the Web Forums Science