[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 (1242 previous messages)

gisterme - 03:24am Apr 11, 2002 EST (#1243 of 1257)

rshow55 4/10/02 6:44pm

"...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 (his) colleagues..."

You are a marvel at ignoring details, Robert. Your habit of ignoring technical analysis that has been posted here by me is the example of your lack of desire to "check". Of course your confidence in asking that question stems from the fact that most of what's been written on this thread was deleted along with the first 10,000+ other posts on the original MD thread.

But, since you've made this statement about me giving "every indication" that I have discussed things I have posted here with "collegues" I'd really like check what you base that statment on, Robert. What are those indications? Got an example? No? I didn't think so. So much for your desire to "check".

You're the smoke and mirrors guy, Robert. You're quick to challenge what I've said on this thread when you know the vast majority of it is no longer accessable for reference. You only want to check what is uncheckable. That's your modus operandi. I've said several times before, "talk is cheap". You're all talk, without appreciable substance.

Still you asked me to point out what you've said about the technical details of the current BMD program that is not correct. I'll say, nearly everything; but the overarching statement you consitantnly make (that rolls the details together) is that BMD "can't work". You seldom give a technical reason that references any technology beyond what was available back in the '70s. Even an auto mechanic should be able to do better than that. My answer to that is "four successes out of the first six tries" for the current BMD test program. That's far better than the record of our species in attempting flight. Do you deny that we've learned to fly despite all the thousands of years of failed attempts? If BMD "can't work" the score would be zero for six. So the facts contradict your statments. I know that doesn't bother you though, because you seldom let little things like facts get in your way. You should consider joining the Flat Earth'd feel right at home there I'm sure. :-) Perhaps you're already a member. That would explain a lot.

Seriously though, nobody has said that intercepting ballistic missiles is easy. But the cost of not intercepting a single nuclear-armed ballistic missile whose target is a large city is manifold the cost of developing the means to stop it.

To tie that statment to a frame of historical reference, I'll paraphrase presedint Kennedy who said WRT the Apollo program, "We don't choose to go to the moon and do the other things because they're easy, but because they're hard." But the Apollo program was driven by a desire to accomplish a great goal. That was a choice. The cost of that program in 1960s dollars was about $25 billion...that's about the same as the current BMD program in today's dollars (at $100 billion). Great as Appolo was, I'd say that saving a city from being nuked by is an even greater goal. Would you deem six moon landings and a few hundred kilograms of moon rocks to be more valuable than the continued existance of a large city? Would you choose not to defend the city? Apparently. Fortunatly, national defense is not a choice for the United States government in the same sense that the Apollo program was. National defense is a sworn obligation of that government.

Fortunately for many innocents, the United States government doesn't seem to be following your advice, Robert. Oh, well. I guess you've failed to convince them that there's no threat.

Just add that one to your (probably long) list.

lchic - 04:47am Apr 11, 2002 EST (#1244 of 1257)

Following on from Glen's logic .. then .. Israel is America's pitbull ..

    Abdullah Washai had to watch his 17-year-old brother, Munir, slowly bleed to death. He took several hours to die. A hole had been ripped in his shoulder by a round from an Israeli helicopter.
Bush has the leash, his dogs of war can be seen to be out of control - logically Bush will be regarded as the weakest-mostSadistic President ever - on that P-name list!

More Messages Recent Messages (13 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  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