[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 (1849 previous messages)

lchic - 07:36pm Apr 28, 2002 EST (#1850 of 1866)
Mix a little with - NET the wider perspective!

Remember the ideas, innovations, money and trade floating around in the USA are mainly 'WORLD' stuff -- and if they were taken to EU-RU (REU - coined it!) zone -- as they soon might be, then the USA would drop from being a


to a

- fast!

mazza9 - 07:38pm Apr 28, 2002 EST (#1851 of 1866)
Louis Mazza


The first step in colonizing the galaxy is to "solve" the energy and resources issues on planet earth. It begins at sea with the construction of Aquarius. He mines and farms the sea and creates the wealth to fund the space program by producing these goods for all mankind. If you read between the lines you might be surprised.


rshow55 - 07:39pm Apr 28, 2002 EST (#1852 of 1866) Delete Message

There has been a really significant gain in the prestige and power of Russia since March 2001 - could as much increase occur again? If so, it would be "fighting at the same weight" as the United States, as far as persuasiveness goes, in a lot of areas. That may not be impossible -- both because Russia is moving up in credibility, and because the US is moving down.

Seems to me that, for Russia, the same things that have been effective over the last year need to be refined, built on, and continued.

If Russia and EU were well organized, there would be more stable balances, peacefully, and it could happen pretty soon.

rshow55 - 07:40pm Apr 28, 2002 EST (#1853 of 1866) Delete Message

mazza9 4/28/02 7:38pm . . . ! . . . I might, at that.

lchic - 07:41pm Apr 28, 2002 EST (#1854 of 1866)
Mix a little with - NET the wider perspective!

Socialists across Europe must wake up and show they have a purpose / Neil Kinnock

NYT also have a Europe-Right article.

lchic - 07:45pm Apr 28, 2002 EST (#1855 of 1866)
Mix a little with - NET the wider perspective!

Sheep v wolf's clothing ...
they're all sheep
they're all sheep ...
death by slaughter

    Peace is better - try a piece!

lchic - 07:49pm Apr 28, 2002 EST (#1856 of 1866)
Mix a little with - NET the wider perspective!

The last chamber pot in the USA


1) Blue banded chamber pot with suitcase handle lid. 2 flat areas on pot from the mold. Handle on pot was broken off and glued. Chips on ring on underside of lid. $165

Alas detained 'tourists' in Cuba

rshow55 - 07:59pm Apr 28, 2002 EST (#1857 of 1866) Delete Message

MD1584 almarst-2001 4/20/02 9:39pm . . . MD1585 rshow55 4/20/02 11:37pm

Some of the biggest problems are "simple" once one finally understands some key truths, which may be distasteful to look at. In The Great Divide , Paul Krugman suggests that we're at "the ending of an era of laxity." To some extent, in ways that are a credit to the United States (and the New York Times) I think that's proven to be true. But we've got farther to go.

The question "what for?" needs to be answered about US military policy - including missile defense, nuclear weapons, and much else. Problems Bill Casey was terribly concerned about remain problems -- and there need to be workable answers - in a workably true context.

Technical issues about missile defense would be a good start, because they are so technically clear, and lend themselves to umpired discussion to closure. For the specific MD programs on which money is being lavished - the key questions are simple, for each system, considered under realistic tactical conditions, with countermeasures that have to be expected.

Can it see the target?

Can it hit the target?

Can it hurt the target?

The answers are straightforward, involve simple physics and engineering -- and can be checked. Checked on an umpired basis, in public.

We are facing a lot of problems now that can be solved, much better than they are being solved, once we solve problems of closure that are largely organizational -- and where patterns of solution that are workable seem within reach.


More Messages Recent Messages (9 following messages)

 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