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 (14793 previous messages)

rshow55 - 06:19pm Oct 11, 2003 EST (# 14794 of 14808)
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.

14779 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.gKLKb77KNPW.0@.f28e622/16490

This is superb:

A War-Weary People Reach Out in Pain — and Hope By JOHN F. BURNS http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/12/weekinreview/12BURN.html

" Perhaps, after all, it is the politicians and their formulas that matter, not the common person's voice, at least as expressed to an outsider judged eager to hear expressions of good will."

Could we have logical problems - control problems - calibration problems that we might come to understand, and handle better?

I think so. And cites in 14779 show beautiful NYT articles that connect to key reasons.

http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@6@.4a90f6e9/85

A lot of plots look like images you see in many fractals - and some plots of this kind that are practical are shown in books like Analysis of Nonlinear Control Systems by Dunstan Graham and Duane McRuer 1961 - Dover ed 1971

Some interesting cites follow in 14779 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.gKLKb77KNPW.0@.f28e622/16490 Mankind's Inhumanity to Man and Woman - As natural as human goodness? 468-470 reviews some key discussions on this thread. http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7b085/515

The beginning of that thread is interesting, too. http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7b085/0

from the script of Casablanca http://6nescripts.free.fr/Casablanca.pdf p. 92 - cantabb - are you still "shocked" that discussions about international negotiation are going on here - http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.gKLKb77KNPW.0@.f28e622/15013 beside very serious discussions - including excellent posts from Cooper.

wrcooper 14765-8 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.gKLKb77KNPW.0@.f28e622/16476

wrcooper 14770-1 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.gKLKb77KNPW.0@.f28e622/16481

wrcooper 14774-6 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.gKLKb77KNPW.0@.f28e622/16485

Technical issues are interesting - but the most interesting thing about Star Wars is that it persists with so many compelling arguments against it - because our discourse practices are so degenerate.

It makes sense to discuss that.

wrcooper - 07:45pm Oct 11, 2003 EST (# 14795 of 14808)

In re: http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.gKLKb77KNPW.0@.f28e622/16491

klsanford0

You wrote:

"can it hurt the target?"

Well...most nuclear explosions tend to do some slight damage...

Please clarify. Are you suggesting that the Bush administration's NBM system will use nuclear-tipped interceptors?

If so, you are incorrect. The current system proposes to use kinetic devices--smart pebbles--that will slam into an incoming warhead. They're also talking about using beamed energy to target missiles during boost phase, but I've never seen any discussion of using nuclear weapons. What is your source?

wrcooper - 07:48pm Oct 11, 2003 EST (# 14796 of 14808)

Oh, sorry, wrong acronym. It's not NBM. Don't know where that came from. It's NMD, short for National Missile Defense.

rshow55 - 08:02pm Oct 11, 2003 EST (# 14797 of 14808)
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.

wrcooper 14765-8 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.gKLKb77KNPW.0@.f28e622/16476

wrcooper 14770-1 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.gKLKb77KNPW.0@.f28e622/16481

wrcooper 14774-6 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.gKLKb77KNPW.0@.f28e622/16485

klsanford0 - 08:05pm Oct 11, 2003 EST (# 14798 of 14808)

WRC. to me:

"Please clarify."

Just read the post after the one you quoted.....

More Messages Recent Messages (10 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Your Preferences

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