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 - 03:40pm Oct 8, 2003 EST (# 14683 of 14690)
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.

I'm taking a rest for a little while - but I do want to say this.

Unless logical competence at the simple level discussed in the last few posts becomes better than it now is - there is no solution for most of the problems that cause us problems.

Including problems of missile defense - national defense - diplomacy -and the challenge that the NYT has of making a profit.

jorian319 - 03:43pm Oct 8, 2003 EST (# 14684 of 14690)
"Statements on frequently important subjects are interesting." -rshow55

I'm taking a rest for a little while

Thank God for small favors.

Unless logical competence at the simple level discussed in the last few posts becomes better than it now is - there is no solution

Whaaaa? Blather.

wrcooper - 04:43pm Oct 8, 2003 EST (# 14685 of 14690)

In re: http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.sdkNb5eLMfj.0@.f28e622/16388

jorian319

Re: signatures, I don't think it would do to just have some kind of "hot" nosecone separate at boost. It would lack key features like superhot trail of gasses etc. You'd have to have actual "live" burning rockets, which would be difficult (but not impossible) to accomplish.

I don't know. But the point is that decoys or countermeasures would be simpler and less expensive to build and maintain than the missile defense system. In an arms race, the attackers will almost certainly win.

I think the bottom line is that the advantage goes to the attacker if all else is equal. In the case of the USA, all else is not likely to be equal.

Hmm. That's a largely emotional judgement. Just look at what's going on in Iraq right now. All the king's horses and all the king's men...

FTR, I think there is much greater threat from a "suitcase nuke" or cargo-container nuke than from a missile-borne one.

Absolutely. This is one of the biggest arguments against spending our treasure on a missile shield. Suppose we built a system that was 100% effective--a ridiculous assumption--then a determined foe would do exactly what you suggest. They find a low-tech means of delivery. A container ship. Or on the back of a horse across the Rio Grande. Or whatever.

cantabb - 04:47pm Oct 8, 2003 EST (# 14686 of 14690)

rshow55 - 01:56pm Oct 8, 2003 EST (# 14667 of 14684)

Cantabb ( re 14664 - clearing up backlog.) This may help you organize your clearing up. http://www.mrshowalter.net/Cantabb_Srch_to10_4.htm - it only goes to Oct 4 - but it does organize the posts you've made here - and organization for a purpose can be useful.

Thank you for creating and updating this link to my posts.

But I was looking for posts or comments addressed to me that I had not responded to.

You surely have a point that "going around and around" can be both dangerous, infuriating, and misleading - and for a fine example of how dangerous or evasive it can be - a graphic connected to the Enron mess works well ….. …There are loops within loops. A multidimensional shell game.

There are problems with "going around and around" - and processes that cycle but do not converge can be funny, too. (See picture.)

I suggest you take a calm look at the suggestions made by me and others.

But many processes do converge. Very, very many of the solutions in applied math and and pure math, too, involve series.

I don’t know what you mean by “converge,” and for what ? Mathematics, one of the 3R’s. It’s how well we use it and the rationality with which it shows and develops.

Cantabb , I am trying to work through your posts, as well. But at my pace, in a way that seems reasonable to me, and for my own reasons.

Take your time.

rshow55 - 03:30pm Oct 8, 2003 EST (# 14679 of 14684)

Cantabb's asking key questions - questions like "what's data?" - in 14668 and elsewhere - and I've spent some time searching things - in an effort to partially respond - on the assumption that he's interested in closure - and not just conflict without end. It’s the hard facts. The things you need before you can see a pattern.

I suppose one CAN see patterns without the facts, but I don’t think we’re talking about those patters.

It deals with easy issues that make the difference between convergence and divergence - again and again. And reasons why it is easy to take steps toward understanding - or towards divergence and discourd - in discourse.

I am talking about facts, “dots,” that we obtain before we try to do anything with them. In simple terms, it’s probably like finding a dead body (or disappearance of a person), and collecting evidence that could be associated with causing it and then developing a possible scenario. I guess we can all outline our own scenarios (based on our likes/dislikes, opinion, bias etc) but such exercises don’t go far -- unless based on facts (Dots) and these facts are connected not haphazardly but in a rational manner to allow a coherent picture to develop.

(4 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense