[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 (2590 previous messages)

rshow55 - 08:21am Jun 17, 2002 EST (#2591 of 2610) Delete Message

I do hope that, one way or another, a channel can be established where I can communicate with the U.S. government, face to face, on matters of defense and diplomacy. Bill Casey worked me very hard, and I've spent a large fraction of my life thinking about fights. Cleanly executing fights. Clean termination of fights. Avoidance of fights, in ways that are comfortable and stable. End games after ugly, messy fights.

I have been arguing on this thread for interdiction of weapons of mass destruction, which can work, rather than missile defense, which cannot reasonably be expected to. I've been doing so since September 25, 2000.

Some of the information I know about interdiction theory, conflict theory, and the resolution of conflicts may be well conveyed in public channels. But that is not the best way to convey all of it. Some would be better handled on a confidential basis - with some communication face to face. If our "system" is so inflexible that that is impossible, it is a shame, and should be a warning to any of us who worry about the security of the United States.

My guess is that if people in the administration knew some of the things I knew, and understood some of the things I've worked hard, over a long time, to understand, they could fashion cleaner, neater, safer, cheaper, more beautiful patterns of interdiction -- that would work if they had to be used - - and that might function in ways that eliminated risk, without their having to be used.

In the mean time, I'm having to take steps to become, in manj's phrase -- "completely unshackled." So that I can work, and live, and be of more use to myself and perhaps to others.

For example, soon I'll be calling somebody in the Congress concerned with the Crusader matter. MD2556 rshow55 6/15/02 8:28pm .... MD2554 rshow55 6/15/02 7:20pm

rshow55 - 08:26am Jun 17, 2002 EST (#2592 of 2610) Delete Message

Very important posts:

MD2566 almarst2002 6/16/02 10:48pm

MD2567 lchic 6/17/02 3:39am

MD2568 almarst2002 6/17/02 5:53am

MD2570-2573 lchic 6/17/02 7:34am

lchic - 10:37am Jun 17, 2002 EST (#2593 of 2610)


lchic - 10:58am Jun 17, 2002 EST (#2594 of 2610)

physicists in Australia have successfully teleported a laser beam of light from one spot to another in a split second,9865,739108,00.html

almarst2002 - 12:45pm Jun 17, 2002 EST (#2595 of 2610)

lchic 6/17/02 10:58am

A very exciting one.

rshow55 - 01:07pm Jun 17, 2002 EST (#2596 of 2610) Delete Message

Isn't Democracy Worth It? By BOB HERBERT includes this:

"Freedom comes with a heavy price tag. Ben Franklin said in 1755, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Deserving aside, "purchasing" safety at the price of tyranny may be not only a bad trade - but a trade that puts all concerned at much more danger. In a complicated world, a community where people and organizations can and do communicate clearly can have much more effective ACTIVE defenses than tyranny can match.

Clarity and openness can be not only freer, but MUCH safer.

Clear's Safer rshowalter "Science News Poetry" 2/14/01 7:18am

The Bush administration, emphasizing closing off of communication - is moving us in the direction of tyranny, paralysis, and vulnerability . We deserve better - and better can be arranged.

Bill Casey knew about the virtues of secrecy, but the advantages of openness, too. Where that man could get with a phone call or two! He was a powerful citizen in that way. We'd be safer in this country if MOST American were powerful in that sense - able to network in a society that worked.

The safest America would be one that "the average reader of The New York Times" would approve of, be proud of, and feel at home with. And if there was a concern - discussion of some adjustments would only be a phone call away.

lchic - 01:17pm Jun 17, 2002 EST (#2597 of 2610)

Ibsen - would have thought about this - and constructed a play, with impact, to enlighten. Does the USA today have any creative playwrites capable of harnessing an entire population to enlightenment?

    If only the KING were still around to focus attention via words and music!

More Messages Recent Messages (13 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