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.

rshow55 - 05:33pm Jul 21, 2003 EST (# 13072 of 13078)
Can we do a better job of finding truth? YES. Click "rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have done and worked for on this thread.

In 10120 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.EXkYbu1Jrqe.323357@.f28e622/11665 I was giving Bush and Blair more conditional trust than they seem to have deserved, expressed in the phrases:

. If Bush and Blair aren't exactly right on the time and place

. I think now may be a good time for action, everything considered.

Bush and Blair were wrong on the time and the place - in terms of what they said, and what they asked others to agree to. As of now there is NO reason to doubt that the US would be better off, on balance, and the world better off, if the inspections had been continued.

France and Germany were right on some essential points. One doesn't have to like Saddam's regime to think so.

For a workable system of international relations and international law, there has to be a place for military force. That place has to be a rational place - based on judgements that are true, and verifiable. We need to negotiate a workable system of international law into being. We were some way towards that - and have lost ground.

Lies are unstable. The Bush administration has made a mess - and a lot is worse than it would be if they'd had better judgement, and showed better integrity.

Working on this thread, especially since February of this year, I have been making an assumption that people on the UN Security Council looked here from time to time. Those people know whether or not I was right or wrong.

I've also assumed that I was not alone in thinking that gisterme is Bush - for reasons expressed in 10063 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.EXkYbu1Jrqe.323357@.f28e622/11608 .

"What did he know, and when did he know it?" is an interesting question.

The questions:

What did gisterme think and say, and when?

and

Is gisterme President Bush?

are coupled, and answerable, questions.

gisterme - 06:16am Jul 22, 2003 EST (# 13073 of 13078)

lchic - 09:15pm Jul 6, 2003 EST (# 12866 of ...)

"...How many pairs of shoes could Emelda Marcos buy with $48B ?.."

Just check her closet. :-)

gisterme - 06:51am Jul 22, 2003 EST (# 13074 of 13078)

rshow55 - 03:27pm Jul 6, 2003 EST (# 12865 of ...)

http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?16@13.EXkYbu1Jrqe.323357@40679d@.f28e622/14541

"...There are some tough, honest, capable people involved with the Osprey program. It seems likely that the Marines have been watching the contractors involved closely - and watching their own test programs closely. Some very tough tactical and strategic judgements are involved.

If the United States needs this capability - at b this price - ( more than 12 billion has been spent - and 458 Ospreys will cost 48 billion ) then we ought to think and work hard to find ways to make it less precarious..."

I couldn't agree more, Robert; but not because I think the military need is so urgent. Like so many other things that were developed as military applications (at great expense) the technology that the Osprey uses might really help out in the civilian world once all the bugs are worked out. "Motorways of the sea" might work okay in small countries that have a lot of sea coast. However, Osprey-like technology applied to civilian transport might just make a real difference in countries like the US where distances are vast, highways are overcrowded and people need to get from point "A" to point "B" quickly.

Conventional helecopters eliminate the need for the multi-thousand foot runways that other commuter aircraft need. The problem with helecopters is that they are slow and not very fuel efficient. An Osprey-like vehicle has the advantages of a helecoopter but is much faster and more fuel effiecient. 'Seems like a step in the right direction to me.

That's why I'd like to see the development work completed.

(4 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense