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
(1242 previous messages)
- 03:24am Apr 11, 2002 EST (#1243
"...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 Society...you'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.
- 04:47am Apr 11, 2002 EST (#1244
Following on from Glen's logic .. then .. Israel is America's
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
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!
New York Times on the Web Forums Science