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 - 03:00pm Oct 14, 2003 EST (# 14997 of 15020)
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.

Here's a "self serving" mission - that would solve a number of problems _ not only for me.

Organizations are set up to do just what they do - and modifications are hard - even "expected action" is hard - if it disrupts the organization. The responses at NASA that led to the Challenger disaster - and the bureacratic response to it - are examples that are not exceptional, but typical.

Problems Eisenhower was well aware of those problems, and I was asked to work on them - and glad to work on them. 7331 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.glrNbaXWOtL.2522995@.f28e622/8854

AEA was set up by me, with Casey kibbitzing, partly to address those problems. There are times when you need planning - in great detail - applied to the level of assemblies - and then - at least at the level of simulation - or prototyping - you have to actually try the solution out - and then - when you have it working - make a transfer - step by step - to modify a system without killing it.

AEA almost worked. It was stopped at a key point by Casey - and there were other problems - but if lchic had been involved then - as she is now, and knowing what she knows now, it would have worked. 11735-7 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.glrNbaXWOtL.2522995@.f28e622/13345

I would like to be able to set up something very much like AEA again - and do it honestly - and work with Lchic in that format.

I'd like to be able to do that with people involved in AEA fully informed, and satisfied to the extent that was reasonably possible.

In ways that were reasonably satisfactory to my wife, her husband, the New York Times, other members of families involved, the federal government, and other people more-or-less connected. In ways that most people at the UN, if they happened to notice, might think fair.

If that "simple" negotiating objective could be met - all the really intractable problems in negotiation - anywhere - would have to be solved for that exemplary case.

jorian319 - 03:10pm Oct 14, 2003 EST (# 14998 of 15020)
"Statements on frequently important subjects are interesting." -rshow55

To strengthen global security by reducing the risk of use and preventing the spread of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction.

Just my opinion, but that seems a bit farfetched. One company I helped start manufactures first aid and medical kits for outdoor (these days they'd say "extreme") use. If we had tried to rally the troops around a mission statement that said "to enhance the outdoor experience by eliminating risk from injury and preventing accidental death", we'd still be sitting around a conference table wondering who might want to get involved with such a lost cause.

To put it less politely, it is unrealistic to think that by participation in this forum, one can significantly effect global security. And it's downright delusional to think that such an effort can prevent the proliferation of box-cutters, let alone nuclear weaponry. Let's face it, Will is spot on when he says that if it ain't fun it ain't nuthin'.

My own mission statement would along the lines of "to be entertained, to entertain, and to do no harm."

I think that leaves a decent guideline and a reasonable chance of fulfilling the "mission". I'd urge Robert to set his sights on something more attainable. Large victories are usually comprised of many small, attainable goals.

I also agree with Will that an ineffective MD system is worse than none at all. And falsely elevating the importance of missile defense will take an unfathomable toll on our economy, our resources, and worst of all, on our national gestalt.

cantabb - 03:21pm Oct 14, 2003 EST (# 14999 of 15020)

rshow55 - 03:00pm Oct 14, 2003 EST (# 14997 of 14998)

Here's a "self serving" mission - that would solve a number of problems _ not only for me.

Say NO MORE. "Self serving" missions rarely go beyond the person who designed it. Otherwise, it'd be termed something else. Even with best and 'focused' efforts, you may -- may -- solve something of the mission -- but such missions and their designers rarely solve anything else for anyone else.

Organizations are set up to do just what they do .... If that "simple" negotiating objective could be met - all the really intractable problems in negotiation - anywhere - would have to be solved for that exemplary case.

A pie in the sky !

lchic - 03:29pm Oct 14, 2003 EST (# 15000 of 15020)
TRUTH outs in the end : TRUTH has to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong foundation

http://www.medceu.com/course-no-test.cfm?CID=514

(20 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense