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 - 03:36pm Oct 29, 2003 EST (# 15914 of 15925)
ultimately TRUTH outs : TRUTH has to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong foundation

http://www.yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=23809

cantabb - 04:10pm Oct 29, 2003 EST (# 15915 of 15925)

Seeking Answers from Armchair Seekers of "TRUTH" :

Q: I saw a tag-line "Can we do a better job of finding truth?" Can YOU [not "we"]?

A: "YES"

Q: Any specific "Truth." "Truth" in anything specific, in any particular area ? Or just "generic" ?

A: So long it has a proper name-tag.

Q: But what are YOU going to do about "finding" it ? How are you going to "find" IT? And, When ?

A (chimer): "ultimately TRUTH outs"

Q: So, what do we do ? Just sit and wait, and post till it's 'out' ? Don't have to do anything, like seeking it? And, in right places ?

A (chimer): Take "syrup," seek and ye shall find an ATM nearby. And, when you do, push the button marked "TRUTH." Keep pushing it, "ultimately TRUTH outs."

Q: Really ? That Simple.

A: Yeah. And when it's out, "TRUTH" will be "morally forcing" because it "has to."

Q : What next ?

A: Just "build on TRUTH," because "it's a strong foundation." Much stronger than steel.

Q: Till then, wait ?

A: Yep !

Q: NOT like "Finding Nemo" ? One in "3.7 trillion fish in the ocean."

A: NOT at all ! Much simpler than "Where's Waldo" ?

~~~~~~~~~~~

Relevant to MD ? Sure ! Everything else under the sun IS, or can be made to !

bluestar23 - 04:58pm Oct 29, 2003 EST (# 15916 of 15925)

Thirty odd posts since I was last here; all goddamned lchic, who's worse here now even than the Showalter......

bluestar23 - 04:59pm Oct 29, 2003 EST (# 15917 of 15925)

The problem is that my all links or comments on MD are getting swallowed up by the Niagara...unless you do a WRCooper and just "ignore" it all...

bluestar23 - 05:02pm Oct 29, 2003 EST (# 15918 of 15925)

Bush Defense Is Mobile and Paid For

One key element to the Bush missile defense is the U.S. Navy Aegis system. The old ABM treaty with the Soviet Union banned the deployment of anti-missile systems onboard ships. The move to put the Navy on the front line of American home defense was canceled repeatedly by the Clinton administration.

Again, the brilliant move by Bush allows the United States to take advantage of $60 billion worth of missile-firing warships already deployed around the globe.

The removal of the treaty restrictions allowed the U.S. Navy to successfully test the Standard Missile-3. The new Navy missile has performed three consecutive intercepts and is already deployed on the USS Lake Erie as a test bed.

Navy sources indicated that two such ships could defend the West Coast against a North Korean attack and a single ship could defend Hawaii. Additional warships can be stationed close to North Korea, providing local defense for South Korea and Japan.

Finally, the Navy's missile defense system is mobile. Ships can be re-deployed rapidly to areas of new threats around the world. The same warships can protect U.S. coastal cities from sneak attacks fired from cargo ships as well as cruise missile attacks.

Countering a Sneak Attack on America

At a recent missile defense conference held by the American Foreign Policy Council (AFPC), virtually all the participants agreed that the most immediate threat to America is a sneak attack from a short-range missile stationed on a cargo vessel.

According to Congressmen Curt Weldon, R-Pa., "that rogue threat is the most likely scenario for an attack on the U.S."

According to Weldon, the U.S. had monitored a ship-based missile test staged by Iran in the Caspian Sea. Both Weldon and Bush administration sources confirmed that additional funding for Patriot PAC-3 missiles had been approved in an effort to quickly counter the short-range sea-borne missile threat.

Weldon predicted that Bush's move to deploy a missile defense would be greeted by many on Capitol Hill with praise and promises of funding.

For example, Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., the likely chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, praised Bush's actions and stated that Congress would approve the additional $1.5 billion funding.

It's About Defending America

Congressman Weldon stated, "The decision was a long time coming."

"We have been vulnerable. It cost us 28 lives in 1991 when Saddam Hussein fired a Scud missile into a U.S. Army barracks. We could not defend ourselves," said Weldon.

"America vulnerabilities have to be dealt with. It was the right decision. It is not an offensive system. It is all about defending ourselves," concluded Weldon.

(7 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense