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 - 08:19pm Aug 10, 2002 EST (#3623 of 3630)

Some facts have to be checked -- and dealing with the likes of you -- there are times when there has to be force.

You can tell any lie at all and say - - "why not?"

And I think you've been stunningly dishonest, again and again and again.

mazza9 - 09:32pm Aug 10, 2002 EST (#3624 of 3630)
"Quae cum ita sunt" Caesar's Gallic Commentaries

It's interesting how force is so easily justified. It is your mindset that is a barrier to civil discourse, compromise and advancement. Do what I say or I'll force you. Is this intellectual rape?

Every crazy from Genghas Khan to Robert Showalter espouses this methodology. I was brought up different.

LouMazza

mazza9 - 11:21pm Aug 10, 2002 EST (#3625 of 3630)
"Quae cum ita sunt" Caesar's Gallic Commentaries

WRCooper:

Bow and Arrow update. It appears that Marvin and his raygun are coming closer every day.

PHASERS ON STUN?

LouMazza

wrcooper - 11:29pm Aug 10, 2002 EST (#3626 of 3630)

mazza9 8/10/02 11:21pm

We need to develop high-powered pulsed lasers for lightcraft applications. I suppose history will repeat itself and the technology will be developed first for military uses. Alas.

What are your thoughts about what I wrote earlier, about the fundamental wrong-headedness of BMD R&D?

mazza9 - 12:11am Aug 11, 2002 EST (#3627 of 3630)
"Quae cum ita sunt" Caesar's Gallic Commentaries

I was in SAC during the Cold War and the thought of MAD was maddening. Today, we are confronted by people who are developing the wherewithal to rain fire on us. I know that sounds overwrought but those two aircraft hitting the World Trade Center were a sobbering event.

Wrongheadedness sounds like a illogical statement. When President Reagan proposed the Strategic DEFENSE Initiative there was no offensive intention. Many of the nay sayers said that this defensive posture would allow for a first strike capability by the US. Guess what? We've always had a first strike capability! But are our national war policy was that we would launch on warning. That's the old US "plays fair and by the rules" saw. Mind you our first missile detection system was operational in the early 60s before the BMEWS. Yet, we would wait and insure that, at best we would counter punch and the world would cease to exist.

Today, Communist China, North Korea, Iran, and Iraq are pursuing WMDs. They may come to our shore's on a container ship, cruise missile or ballistic missile fired from foreign soil. We need to protect ourselves from all these contingencies. That means BMD, enhanced intelligence, and sophisticated surveillance systems. Until we are properly protected in all instances, we are subject to all manner of blackmail. The Soviet Union was smart enough to play the MAD game but is Al Quida, Saddam, China, or North Korea?

LouMazza

mazza9 - 01:44am Aug 11, 2002 EST (#3628 of 3630)
"Quae cum ita sunt" Caesar's Gallic Commentaries

WRCooper:

Another thought. I agree that sometimes our services are wasteful and misdirected. Name me one branch of our government that isn't. Imperfect people make for imperfect government. Usually, we remember this Hobbsian underpinning of our society and government. Beware of those who espouse perfection!

Robert is always quoting Eisenhower's "Military Industrial Complex" admonition. Ike was right of course. But that doesn't mean we stop buying MREs for the Marines! I remember one of the really stupid boondoggles of the 50s. The Army and Air Force were insistent on developing their own IRBMs . They spec'ed the engines so that they could not be interchangeable between the Jupiter C and Thor rockets even though the thrust was to be essentially the same and throw weight and distance were similar. It was the old blue suit green suit competition. At the time there were many who called for a unified service with specialized missions. the question asked was why does the Navy have and Army, the Army and Air Force and the Air Force an Army and Navy? This is a management issue that goes back to, at least, Hannibal!

when we have poor leadership and management we have these excesses. Even in the non-military aspects of our government services. Ask yourself, why do we still have 1970's air traffic controll in 2002?

LouMazza

lchic - 04:16am Aug 11, 2002 EST (#3629 of 3630)

FISK

comments on USA stored munitions

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia_china/story.jsp?story=323058

lchic - 04:39am Aug 11, 2002 EST (#3630 of 3630)

MoralForcing | A couple of years ago I was talking through the concept of paradigms and why they happen and what can be done -
(see GU thread sciParadigm).

The concept of

moral_forcing

So when the value of the material that is currently being blocked has vast application that will help and improve the lives of many - then this should enter 'reasoning' 'logic' 'rationalisation' and need for acceptance.

There was talk of a guy whose father was a medic

I said a person brought up in such an environment, should immediately understand the need to allow new knowledge to enter the culture. Knowledge that can do so many so much good via improved accuracy in engineering and design.

mAzzA it's hard for me to express just how disappointed i was - having found your photo on the net - only to see it was so blocked-out it was impossible to tell just who was in the photo; likewise i mapped your address ... only to wonder ....

:)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense