New York Times Forums
The New York Times

Home
Job Market
Real Estate
Automobiles
News
International
National
Washington
Business
Technology
Science
Health
Sports
New York Region
Education
Weather
Obituaries
NYT Front Page
Corrections
Opinion
Editorials/Op-Ed
Readers' Opinions


Features
Arts
Books
Movies
Travel
Dining & Wine
Home & Garden
Fashion & Style
Crossword/Games
Cartoons
Magazine
Week in Review
Multimedia
College
Learning Network
Services
Archive
Classifieds
Book a Trip
Personals
Theater Tickets
Premium Products
NYT Store
NYT Mobile
E-Cards & More
About NYTDigital
Jobs at NYTDigital
Online Media Kit
Our Advertisers
Member_Center
Your Profile
E-Mail Preferences
News Tracker
Premium Account
Site Help
Privacy Policy
Newspaper
Home Delivery
Customer Service
Electronic Edition
Media Kit
Community Affairs
Text Version
TipsGo to Advanced Search
Search Options divide
go to Member Center Log Out
  

 [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 (14777 previous messages)

rshow55 - 07:24am Oct 11, 2003 EST (# 14778 of 14779)
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.

Cooper's right about weight and simplicity.

From Cooper's Cato quote above http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-337es.html :

"First, any NMD system will probably have at least two different media for the detection and discrimination of incoming warheads—radar and infrared (IR). For the NMD system to be fooled, effective countermeasures would have to successfully simulate both the radar and IR signatures of a real warhead.

The statement makes a lot of assumptions about what our sensors, guidance, and delivery systems can actually do do. Or could possibly do.

1667 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.ktQSbbmnNdN.1900822@.f28e622/2087

Key questions about specific missile defense systems can be discussed without using any classified information at all.

Here are the key questions, for any specific system:

Can it see the target?

Can it hit the target?

Can it hurt the target?

The most specific information about these questions will be classified, and rightly so.

But the most fundamental information cannot be classified - because it is deeply embedded in the open literature, and based on simple physics an engineering.

What can be done in the open literature? Would it take miracles for the system, in terms of details that are open, to see , hit , and hurt the target?

How many miracles, in terms of countermeasures that have to be expected?

Searching the phrases "see the target" ; "hit the target" or "hurt the target" brings up a lot of material relevant to the case. Cato's argument is grossly, grossly misleading.

But to check - it is necessary to "connect some dots."

Here are two great posts from lchic - one on Postol - the next on problems we all have when "connecting the dots" goes against our "wiring to be nice" and the injury we all feel when people are not nice. http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7726f/1316

Rejection really hurts finds brain study http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994257

Cooper, great references above.

Mostly I'm resting and reflecting this weekend - but did want to post this.

More Messages Recent Messages (1 following message)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Your Preferences

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  / Missile Defense