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.

bluestar23 - 09:25am Oct 29, 2003 EST (# 15874 of 15884)

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20031028-015702-2168r.htm

The link...

bluestar23 - 09:27am Oct 29, 2003 EST (# 15875 of 15884)

Typical cowardly Canadians...of course they should have the missile protection....then they can later decide whether to fire the missile or not..

bluestar23 - 09:37am Oct 29, 2003 EST (# 15876 of 15884)

Showalter complains on the GuardianTalk:

"Some adversarial aspects of my interactions on the MD board with Cantabb crop up in the following posting - but I was glad to get it - because it let me make a point about a distinction between nonoscillating and oscillatory arrangements - each of which can be stable under different circumstances - that I wanted to make. And also permitted me to state a personal problem that Cantabb and the NYT or the Guardian may not be able to solve - but that the US government could solve."

cantabb - 09:44am Oct 29, 2003 EST (# 15877 of 15884)

bluestar: The Canadian decisiion (posted link) seems intriquing.

Why not divert the air routes away ? Why allow them over the facility (no matter at what level) and NOT protect it. Sure, accidental shooting of a non-threatening (commercial) flight would be risk: Also possible that the facility could also be used as the target too. Regardless, what's the problem in changing the flight pattern, away from the facility?

bluestar23 - 09:58am Oct 29, 2003 EST (# 15878 of 15884)

No, can't change the flight pattern...too major of a flyway, maybe no where to change it to....screams from the airlines.....

It is a problem...when some guy flew a Cessna into Bill Clinton's White House, it was assumed there were "Stinger" IR shoulder-fired missiles on the roof @ the time- but they did not fire them for fear of missing the Cessna and having missile veer off to nearby (Newark..?) airport and bring down a airliner...this might be alleviated by new technology.

cantabb - 09:58am Oct 29, 2003 EST (# 15879 of 15884)

bluestar23 - 09:37am Oct 29, 2003 EST (# 15876 of 15877)

Showalter complains on the GuardianTalk: "Some adversarial aspects of my interactions on the MD board with Cantabb crop up in the following posting - but I was glad to get it - because it let me make a point about a distinction between nonoscillating and oscillatory arrangements - each of which can be stable under different circumstances - that I wanted to make. And also permitted me to state a personal problem that Cantabb and the NYT or the Guardian may not be able to solve - but that the US government could solve."

Doesn't surprise me. Still looking for my name 'written on the subway walls'. Showalter's slipping.

Forget his reference to me. He gives people not aware of the entire situation a deliberately misleading picture, by NOT giving them my side of the exchange -- such things are too much to expect from rshow.

Look at his at his logic thee: ridiculous ! Nothing new for rshow55.

Can you post a link to it ? I'll look into it sometime.

cantabb - 10:02am Oct 29, 2003 EST (# 15880 of 15884)

No, can't change the flight pattern...too major of a flyway, maybe no where to change it to....screams from the airlines.....

No other alternative ? May be inviting trouble !

bluestar23 - 10:12am Oct 29, 2003 EST (# 15881 of 15884)

Showalter's not posting so much, so things are looking up around here, more like normal...

(3 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense