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.

rshow55 - 09:52pm Jul 28, 2002 EST (#3327 of 3339)

Interesting. 22 posting just got deleted. I'll have to go back and check what they were.

I was about to post this:

U.S. Exploring Baghdad Strike as Iraq Option By DAVID E. SANGER and THOM SHANKER http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/29/international/29IRAQ.html

"We are looking at the three or four options in between."

As a person who once gave a good deal of thought to interdiction - - it seems to me that the US might consider 4-9 options "in between" -- with sub-options -- all CLEARLY disclosed to the Iraqis.

Repeat: Clearly disclosed.

If the US military can't come up with 20-50 fully workable plans, in short order -- they should work (for the 2-3 weeks it ought to take) until they can do so. Then, they should choose option sets according to a simple rule.

The military should look at options where defense against any particular option precludes an effective defense against any other, from the Iraqi point of view. And where switching from option to option is quick and easy for American forces. Details of execution should be quickly, cleanly programmed for whatever defense option the Iraqis happen to deploy.

In military history, the cleanest, neatest fights are not routs. They occur when one force commits to a coordinated effort, and can be "taken down in order."

If the Iraqi military were confronted with a situation where they were sure that they were going to be defeated - -- beyond reasonable question -- down in order - the objectives of the war might be accomplished cleanly, with absolutely minimum casualties (and minimum mess) on either side.

Professional soldiers are brave, but not suicidal.

Our objective is not carnage, but regime change.

A negotiated change of Iraqi behavior, that eliminated the threats that worry us, would be ideal. For all concerned.

If the military forces of Iraq were sure that they could not survive an attack -- defending only the desire of Saddam to threaten mass murder -- and were also sure that they could defend anything they could reasonably value about their country if they negotiated -- fights might be avoided.

(Note: IMHO, if the Bush administration had called me on the telephone, as I asked them to do before Bin Laden slipped through their fingers -- things would have been considerably cleaner. I've had some very expensive training, and it seems a waste that I'm having to work under current, cramped circumstances. )

The United States ought to want to neutralilze intolerable threats from Iraq (one way or another.) But it ought to want to do that on a basis that has a decent and stable end game.

Because it was one of the main concerns Casey had, I've given a lot of thought to that.

rshow55 - 10:34pm Jul 28, 2002 EST (#3328 of 3339)

MD3282-86 rshowalt 7/25/02 8:13pm is well worth considering.

We have problems to fix. There are fewer postings from wrcooper than there were recently.

I'm for accountability. But I'll be doing my accounting in the morning.

We need to find ways to "connect the dots" so that we can deal with key facts, that ought to have morally forcing circumstances. The technical means are at hand - or only a small effort input away. The stakes are very high - for reasons Krugman has pointed out before, that he points out again in The Private Interest By PAUL KRUGMAN http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/26/opinion/26KRUG.html .

We need to do better than we have done at

" the collection, connection, and correction of the dots"

We can. For a long time, the Bush administration has intimidated so many so thoroughly that this hasn't been doable. But it is becoming so.

Some "unwritten rules" of journalism need to be rethought. Sometimes "old news" and "new news" need to be combined - and checked.

lchic - 11:02pm Jul 28, 2002 EST (#3329 of 3339)

http://www.publiceye.org/main.htm

Were those 'people' who Cooper says don't read the board - reading it?

Maybe Cooper pulled the post where he said he worked within RCN in Chicago - before later admitting he uses RCN services only! What a Whopper!

rshow55 - 11:14pm Jul 28, 2002 EST (#3330 of 3339)

SECULAR REDEMPTION http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@155.X0apa6zDeDc.0@.ee79f4e/1345

MD2599 lchic 6/17/02 1:46pm

lchic - 11:20pm Jul 28, 2002 EST (#3331 of 3339)

The Bush musketeers haven't hit the headlines for a while - is it recess?

(8 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense