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
(1580 previous messages)
- 05:57pm Apr 20, 2002 EST (#1581
" 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
"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
" All non-U.S. delegates must also submit a visit request through
their appropriate national Embassy in Washington, DC, for forwarding
" 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.
"CONFERENCE REGISTRATION FORMS MUST BE SENT TO AIAA. DO NOT SEND
REGISTRATION FORMS TO MDA.
"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" ?
- 06:02pm Apr 20, 2002 EST (#1582
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
Here are questions that don't depend on any classified material
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
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:
... MD729 rshow55
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.
- 06:02pm Apr 20, 2002 EST (#1583
USA - Jenin - Transparency --- really?!!
It fits in, exactly with, quote : 'the popular image of
New York Times on the Web Forums Science