[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 (1580 previous messages)

rshow55 - 05:57pm Apr 20, 2002 EST (#1581 of 1584) Delete Message

" Conference Security . . . . All Delegates are expected to be actively engaged in work related to missile defense and have a NEED-TO-KNOW for the information to be discussed. Attendance is therefore by invitation only, not as a result of general advertisement or other solicitation. You are reminded to maintain these basic criteria if you choose to pass this invitation on to another person.

"Only registrants with a U.S. SECRET, NATO SECRET, or other U.S. Government recognized foreign equivalent clearance and a validated NEED-TO-KNOW will be allowed to attend all four days of the conference, including open and closed sessions. Delegates with a valid NEED-TO-KNOW for whom a security clearance has not been received may ONLY attend the UNCLASSIFlED sessions on days one and two.

"Please note that there are separate forms for U.S. and non-U.S. badging purposes, as well as the conference registration form. Badging and clearance information for U.S. personnel are on the attached “CONFERENCE BADGING AND U.S. SECURITY CLEARANCE CERTIFICATION (U.S. Citizens)” instruction sheet and form. Instructions for all other personnel are on the attached “CONFERENCE BADGING FOR NON-U.S. CITIZENS” instruction sheet and form.

"Completed U.S. and Non-U.S. badging forms must be mailed to:

"MDA/SCO . . . Attn: ACC/Conference Budging . . . 7100 Defense Pentagon . . Washington, DC 2030 1-7100

" And faxed to MDAISCO, Attn: ACC/Conference Budging, (ii 703/693-1526.

" All non-U.S. delegates must also submit a visit request through their appropriate national Embassy in Washington, DC, for forwarding to:

" Defense Intelligence Agency Foreign Liaison Office The Pentagon . . .Room1E81 1 Washington, DC 20301

" Visit requests should note that the request is to support participation in the MDA supported Year 2002 Multinational BMD Conference in Dallas, Texas, 3-6 June 2002.

"Completed badging forms, digital photographs, and visit authorization request (VAR) submissions through your embassy must be received by MDA no later than 3 May 2002.


"Access to the closed sessions on days three and four will be controlled by security personnel based upon approved visit requests, security clearance certification rosters, and a completed (paid) conference registration. A hand-carried clearance will not be accepted at the conference site.

"Delegates will not be allowed to bring electronic equipment of any nature (e.g. portable telephones, pagers, computers, digital assistants, organizers, dictionaries, recording devices, cameras, etc.) into the conference area during the conference. Note taking will not be permitted in or around the conference site during the classified session days. Books, magazines, flyers, brochures, and other paper products will not be allowed into the classified conference area. Luggage and other baggage items will not be allowed into the conference area. All handbags and personal possessions will be inspected upon entry into the conference area, or as required. Security spot checks may be made at any time.

  • **********

    Comment: The key questions about basic feasibility are assumed in this conference -- and not really discussable. Imagine yourself in the context in which this conference exists. What questions can you ask? What questions can't you realistically ask, and stay "a member of the team" ?

    rshow55 - 06:02pm Apr 20, 2002 EST (#1582 of 1584) Delete Message

    I'll be making a moderate effort to get invited to the conference, and go, - to discuss the key questions, assumed by the missile defense program. There are mistakes, right at the foundation of the program - that the conference, as it is set up, cannot reasonably discuss - - that can be discussed very well in other ways.

    Here are questions that don't depend on any classified material at all:

    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. They need to be.


    " 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 date?

    These missile defense programs need to be evaluated in a reasonable tactical context, subject to the countermeasures that can reasonably be expected and specified.

    To get these questions clearly set out and answered, in ways that would matter for action, 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.

    Challenge, questions, and invokation of the need for force:
    MD728 rshow55 3/20/02 8:58pm
    ... MD729 rshow55 3/20/02 9:32pm
    MD730 rshow55 3/20/02 9:37pm

    Gisterme made the analogy between "missile defense" and the Apollo program -- and quoted Kennedy to the general effect that "we choose to do this, not because it is easy, but because it is hard." MD1243 gisterme 4/11/02 3:24am If the challenge is too hard -- that stance is not glorious - it is ridiculous -- and squanders both the resources and the honor of the United States of America.

    lchic - 06:02pm Apr 20, 2002 EST (#1583 of 1584)
    USA - Jenin - Transparency --- really?!!

    It fits in, exactly with, quote : 'the popular image of Texas'

    More Messages Recent Messages (1 following message)

     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