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 (15122 previous messages)

bluestar23 - 11:34pm Oct 15, 2003 EST (# 15123 of 15130)

"World Asset":

"China - a country most in need of sanitation - has the cash to spare to put a man in space .... whoopeee!!"

The world is in serious trouble with these "Assets"......

bluestar23 - 11:38pm Oct 15, 2003 EST (# 15124 of 15130)

Good links...some of what you post I regard as biased sources, such as the Union of Concerned Scientists, some links are pro-MD...I am aware of the special difficulties of MD...

wrcooper - 01:44am Oct 16, 2003 EST (# 15125 of 15130)

In re: <a href="/webin/WebX?14@13.7FggbbL8OeL.2785958@.f28e622/16828">bluestar23 10/15/03 5:17pm</a>

bluestar23

Hmm. You said earlier that suitcase nukes were only an urban legend. Now you're saying that they exist but need secret codes to detonate them. This is supposed to make us feel better?

The point is that it's possible to build a small portable device that fits in a relatively small package. That's doable. That's why the threat I outlined is real and much more likely than an ICBM--an expensive, highly visible and traceable, and technologically advanced machine.

You denied that such weapons existed. You've admitted that you were incorrect about your statement that such weapons were imaginary. I think that, given the uncertainty we have about the security of Russian warheads, we can be equally uncertain about the security of the secret codes, if they in fact exist.

The fact remains, if Russia can build a suitcase bomb, so can others.

lchic - 01:55am Oct 16, 2003 EST (# 15126 of 15130)
TRUTH outs ultimately : TRUTH has to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong foundation

The CWC is the most ambitious treaty in the history of arms control.

    Chemical Weapons

lchic - 02:07am Oct 16, 2003 EST (# 15127 of 15130)
TRUTH outs ultimately : TRUTH has to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong foundation

MD

http://www.gyre.org/news/explore/Against+Missile+Defense

http://www.smdc.army.mil/ http://www.smdc.army.mil/

More Messages Recent Messages (3 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Your Preferences

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