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 - 01:41pm Jul 31, 2002 EST (#3383 of 3398)

http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@193.6nAjaSEWh71.0@.ee7a163/320

almarst2002 - 03:40pm Jul 31, 2002 EST (#3384 of 3398)

China pursues arsenal of technology - http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020731-70615241.htm

"China's military has studied how the United States conducts modern warfare and the sensors that are involved, said Mr. Wortzel. "They are looking at blind what we call C4ISR — command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance," he said.

"They know we can't fight without that stuff, and they're working at denying it to us."

Another candidate to the "Access of Evil" Club?

The Cold War's question "To Bomb or Not to Bomb" seems to be relaced by the Post Cold War "When to Bomb" as a major "foreign policy" dilemma for White House inhabitats. Hence the infamous: "Who is not with us...". Lenin and Hitler would perfectly agree.

rshow55 - 05:11pm Jul 31, 2002 EST (#3385 of 3398)

MD1074 rshow55 7/31/02 9:05am starts as follows:

http://www.subvertise.org/details.php?code=453 shows a very effective poster which includes this quote:

" Why of course the people don't want war -- but after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship . . Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country. ......... Hermann Goering --- Nuremberg Trials.

We need to do better. One way to do better is to find ways to see that key facts are checked.

MD1075 rshow55 4/4/02 1:20pm ... MD1076 rshow55 4/4/02 1:21pm

The checking process proposed in MD1076-76 and many times elsewhere on this thread has been much slowed down because of a problem of mine. One that ought to be easily solved. Surprising how difficult it has turned out to be.

If I was free of security limitations - or had clear limitations, and that was in writing, or otherwise clearly checkable , then I could interact with people in workable ways - for collaborations and business relationships that fit real needs, in real circumstances.

It seems to me that there has been progress, but it has been a slow, slow thing. If the government wasn't resisting, actively and passively, it would be an easy thing. They have some reasons to resist.

Or maybe I'm going at it wrong . . . .

mazza9 - 06:14pm Jul 31, 2002 EST (#3386 of 3398)
"Quae cum ita sunt" Caesar's Gallic Commentaries

You're gong at it wrong! Quae cum ita sunt!

rshow55 - 08:31pm Jul 31, 2002 EST (#3387 of 3398)

Everybody's wrong about something, after all. I'm thinking about ways to do better. Sometimes, I wish I could respond more quickly - and I do try to respond pretty directly - but, like everyone else, my resources are limited.

It seems to me that this was a reasonably straightforward approach:
2472-2476 rshow55 6/6/02 9:23pm ... people near the masthead at the NYT know who Mr. XXXXXX is.

I asked what seemed to me then , and still seems to me, to be a reasonable question:

"Could things be arranged so that I could talk to ______, or some other professional, on technical matters, in a way so that I had reasonable confidence, and _________ had reasonable confidence, that, whatever other problems we might have, our conversation did not violate US national security laws? MD2326 rshow55 5/20/02 5:43pm

In additions to the information in 2472-2476, there was additional information sent to NYT columnists - and some other responsible people.

I got a response - but only verbally, from a person who also called my wife, and another person -- saying "CIA has no interest in any of your material." How useful that would have been if it had been in writing!

A number of connected communication channels, that I thought ought to convey information - conveyed my need for something in writing - not an endorsement or credentialling of any kind, but a statement that would reduce security risks for those who dealt with me.

Got a disappointing response to a direct, reasonable approach.

MD3355 rshow55 7/30/02 6:28pm

There is a good deal of context that can be checked: MD2115 rshow55 5/9/02 9:34am

And high stakes for me - high enough to make some hard work entirely rational - both for me, and for people I care about: MD2769 rshow55 6/29/02 7:59am

Checking facts in important, and perhaps there is room for improvement in the way we do it: MD1622-3 rshow55 4/21/02 7:59pm

Could I be wrong about some things? Sure.

But it is surprising how difficult checking often is.

Back tomorrow.

lchic - 12:56am Aug 1, 2002 EST (#3388 of 3398)

mAzzA says
someone's going at it wrong


Wrong for whom, whom, whom and whom?
What's 'it'?

(10 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense