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.

gisterme - 02:53pm Sep 18, 2003 EST (# 13738 of 13824)

Fred -

"I've no idea why NYT keeps this Forum. It's a mystery..."

I'm with you on that.

"...However, Missile Defence is much more than just technology. Its about resolving human CONFLICT first and foremost..."

Then why not call this forum "Human Conflict Resolution"? Naa, Fred, I think this forum was originally intended to sound out the feelings of the body politic on the topic of development and deployment of a technological anti-ballistic missile system. I'm sure it was hoped that some fresh minds might present some fresh ideas about the reality of the need for such defense and whether the need is sufficient to justify the expenditure.

It would seem that the questions are no longer so open since the WTC massacre...even the most bleeding of hearts now realize that there are folks out there who really want to hurt us regardless of how kind or compassionate we may be.

"...The best missile defence comes not from employing technology which can pauper a country and remain unused but from understanding human conflict..."

Unless of course, somebody who has nukes and ballistic missiles (or wants them) is not interested in resolving human conflict. Don't lose the distinction between "resolving" and "understanding" WRT human conflict. Would it shock you to imagine that some people would do anything to preserve or advance their own personal power? I'd suggest that every tyrant that has ever occupied a seat of power has had a better understanding of human conflict than those shoved aside during the tyrant's ascension.

There's a myth abroad in the world that "all people are reasonable if you'll just reason with them". Neville Chamberlain comes to mind as one who tested the myth. Unfortunatly, since the large scale anthropomorphization of animals in the last century (Bambi, Bugs Bunny & etc.) the myth has been extended to the animal world. It's just as applicable there. Several people get killed by grizzly bears every year by approaching them with purely good intentions and love in their hearts.

"...Most of the posts on this forum deal with that issue and are thus perfectly on topic."

Nice try, Fred, but I just can't go along with that. If all people were reasonable there would be no need for defense of any kind among humans.

cantabb - 03:43pm Sep 18, 2003 EST (# 13739 of 13824)

gisterme - 02:53pm Sep 18, 2003 EST (# 13738 of 13738)

Then why not call this forum "Human Conflict Resolution"?

Even IF it were, do you think any 'human conflict' can ever be resolved by the rambling naivete seen here. OR, by old personal tales, conspiracy theories (poster identities etc) and the kitchen sink approach ? I've seen outrageous claims of achievement (not only problems resolved, but thousands/millions of LIVES saved], BUT none verifiable in the least.

Again, even IF it were on that topic, what's THIS got to do with 'Science' ? [Unless, of course, it's resricted to credentialed psychoanalysis of specific 'human conflict resolution' problems related to Missile Defense, and NOT on or about a poster's own].

The debate conducted here should have NO place in 'Science', because it involves NOT 'Science." Period.

gisterme - 04:07pm Sep 18, 2003 EST (# 13740 of 13824)

"...Again, even IF it were on that topic, [Human Conflict resolution] what's THIS got to do with 'Science' ?..."

That was a rhetorical question, cantabb. Didn't you read the rest of the post? ;-]

Anyway, if a technological missile defense system is really to be discussed, the bottom line for me is not whether it's possible or not (I'm sure it is) but whether it's needed or not. If the reasons we may or may not need such a defensive system stray away from the strictly "technologically scientific" a bit, well, what can be said about that?

I presume that the reason that the missile defense forum was included in the "science" category rather than something like "politics" is because any realization of such a system is generally (and rightly) perecived to be effort at the leading edge of technological development. However, there's definately a human perception component involved as well. So it seems that the topic is multi-dimensional.

Not including MD under "science" because it's classified as having a political dimension or not including it under "politics" because it's classified as having a technical dimension might just be an example of how something could be "classified out of existance" to use rshow's term. Although that's certainly not what he meant, I have to admit that it's the first real example of the idea I've found that makes any sense. :-)

jorian319 - 04:27pm Sep 18, 2003 EST (# 13741 of 13824)

...the bottom line for me is not whether it's possible or not (I'm sure it is) but whether it's needed or not.

Agreed. A smuggled or domestically assembled device would seem a much greater threat than one delivered (suicidally, by the country of origin) by missile.

(83 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense