[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 (2531 previous messages)

almarst2002 - 07:02pm Jun 14, 2002 EST (#2532 of 2540)

WHO IS this guy? Napoleon? -

Let’s get this straight: The military forces of this country are no longer commissioned to fight for America’s defense. Rather, they must stand ready to head for any continent that’s home to “tyrants,” every country where “human liberty” is being denied, and any nation that is not “free and open.” If we don’t like a leader or the way a country’s being run, we’re ready to send in our forces. Look out Saddam Hussein. Look out Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Libya, Syria and any other country deemed “evil.” Either you carry out a “regime change” or we’re coming to get you!

supersnooper58 - 09:27pm Jun 14, 2002 EST (#2533 of 2540)

"A fool and his money are soon parted." P.T. Barnum

Missile shield test a success, says Pentagon


Interceptor Rocket Test Ends


can knock down a medium- or long-range missile under controlled conditions.

...wasn't meant to be realistic but would help gather data to guide further development of ship-based anti-missile systems.

``Either way, whether it hits or misses, it's not demonstrating or trying to demonstrate a capability to shoot down intercontinental ballistic missiles at long ranges,'' said Coyle, who headed the Pentagon's testing office under President Clinton.

One thing both articles failed to mention; was just how much this test cost the American taxpayers for Thursday's demonstration. And, since we are only gathering data, this question should be no great feat for the Bush Administration to derive an answer for the public.

As to the "controlled conditions", well let's just say that, we still cannot hit a target if decoy material is spread out before the target , that we aim to hit and destroy. And always remember: the smarter or better we get with our radar systems to offset this imbalance, the other side will always think of ways to make their decoys more effective too. Much like a hacker and software, the two are one. That's only if our FBI & CIA agents don't steal the information and sell it to the other side. Bear in mind we have yet to figure out if all of our nasty moles are caught and or incarcerated.

And I wonder, just what was meant by the Pentagon officials comment when they (and we still don't know who the they are) said that the test wasn't meant to be realistic. Are we wasting our money here folks? Or what? How much will fact finding cost us overall? Damn it, I want a breakdown of costs, to see just how unrealistic this project will be, and who (and I mean all of them) is prospering from this program, and what other countries are involved. I want to know that our secrets are safe, since we have gotten many a black-eye from past performances by our people in the information control departments.

And why did the NYTimes question Coyle, who headed the Pentagon's testing office under President Clinton. He's not in office now, and shouldn't be allowed to express his opinion, which was totally a waste anyway. He said - basically nothing at all. So what the hell is the test for Coyle, or do you always dangle a carrot that is not really a carrot at all, in front of the American citizens. Your sentence said nothing. And why did the Times waste their good ink on such a non-informational quote?


That is all.

almarst2002 - 10:13pm Jun 14, 2002 EST (#2534 of 2540)


As they love to spend money on him.

Now that's all.

supersnooper58 - 12:03am Jun 15, 2002 EST (#2535 of 2540)

You do have a point there, sorry I left it off.

Later thanks, and have an ENRON kind of day,


modified at 12:02 AM

lchic - 03:05am Jun 15, 2002 EST (#2536 of 2540)

So jawG is reduced to mainly conversing with monikers - must be that sort of a week over in the US(A).

The Guardian ran this header

Cracks show in Bush's White House
The president's men are at odds with themselves

" .. . Mr Rumsfeld was speaking from the hip at the flashpoint of a potential nuclear confrontation. ... ",7369,738011,00.html
" Mr Bush appears unable or unwilling to settle the row. He is constrained from leaning too heavily on the Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, by his fear of alienating pro-Israeli conservatives who represent the core of his re-election strategy. "

(If these guys represent only 6% of the USA and are right-of-rightWingers .. then the only other factor they might be good for i$$$$$$!)

lchic - 04:41am Jun 15, 2002 EST (#2537 of 2540)

Why would 6% of the USA population represent Bush's core election strategy ... isn't Bush supposed to represent 100% of the people, so where do the othe 9-4% fit?!

More Messages Recent Messages (3 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Email to Sysop  Your Preferences

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

Home | Site Index | Site Search | Forums | Archives | Shopping

News | Business | International | National | New York Region | NYT Front Page | Obituaries | Politics | Quick News | Sports | Science | Technology/Internet | Weather
Editorial | Op-Ed

Features | Arts | Automobiles | Books | Cartoons | Crossword | Games | Job Market | Living | Magazine | Real Estate | Travel | Week in Review

Help/Feedback | Classifieds | Services | New York Today

Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company