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.

lchic - 07:36am Oct 15, 2003 EST (# 15065 of 15090)
TRUTH outs ultimately : TRUTH has to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong foundation

Gisterme said

" Good. Building a reliable missile defense isn't all that easy either. Let's hope we can get the MD done before they can do their thing.

It might be close. "

lchic - 07:41am Oct 15, 2003 EST (# 15066 of 15090)
TRUTH outs ultimately : TRUTH has to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong foundation

Showalter check out 15058, 15061-3

rshow55 - 07:48am Oct 15, 2003 EST (# 15067 of 15090)
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.

PJFocke is a superb guy - and I'm checking 15058, 15061-3 out. Paul deserves all the scientific support he can possibly get - and he (and I) have some good reason to hate this thread.

The lyrics to Ruby Tuesday fit here. http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md01000s/md1224_1230.htm

lchic - 07:53am Oct 15, 2003 EST (# 15068 of 15090)
TRUTH outs ultimately : TRUTH has to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong foundation

http://medweb.bham.ac.uk/neuroscience/groups/outside.htm

gisterme - 07:53am Oct 15, 2003 EST (# 15069 of 15090)

lchic -

"...But it's not 'that good' - protecting only the USA - if it works"

You might not say that if you lived in the USA. Suppose this problem were between Austrailia and NK. Suppose Austrailia was the target of the saber rattling (and possible nukes). Would you feel the same?

Personally I think that the MD system being developed now will eventually protect much more than the US itself. I depends on whether or not we take on other partners in the effort. At any rate when and MD sheild has been shown to be effective it might just make ICBMs obsolete. Good riddance. Way more than just the US would be protected in that case...at least from ICBMs.

lchic - 08:13am Oct 15, 2003 EST (# 15070 of 15090)
TRUTH outs ultimately : TRUTH has to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong foundation

Boys TOYS Gisterme, expensive too.

If the world were synchronised to work in harmony ... then taxation revenues, world wide, could be used for people-betterment.

rshow55 - 08:30am Oct 15, 2003 EST (# 15071 of 15090)
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.

It would be wonderful to make ICBM's obsolete.

But - the logic of the situation goes the other way. When the target is a nuclear tipped missile - and the job is "hitting a bullet with a bullet" the standard systems questions can be thought of in a loop structure.

For i = 1 to infinity

1. For a specific missile target - specify "How in detail can the defense system see , hit and destroy the target. "

2. Given a specific defensive system with specific affirmative answers to 1. above - "How can the offensive target system be modified to defeat the defense? "

Repeat and reanalyze - in a loop.

Thinking through the loop above - and looking at basic, fundamental facts of the situation - it is clear that it is always easier to build the "bullet or bullet system" than the means of " hitting a bullet with a bullet. "

The logic massively favors the offense - countermeasures may cost less than 1/1000 of what it costs to defeat them - for reasons that are basic and unchangeable.

We need to work to cut our risks in other ways.

(19 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense