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 - 08:33pm Aug 18, 2002 EST (# 3805 of 3826)

"The Pentagon "wasn't so horrified by Iraq's use of gas," said one veteran of the program. "It was just another way of killing people — whether with a bullet or phosgene, it didn't make any difference," he said.

"Former Secretary of State Shultz and Vice President Bush tried to stanch the flow of chemical precursors to Iraq and spoke out against Iraq's use of chemical arms, but Mr. Shultz, in his memoir, also alluded to the struggle in the administration.

"I was stunned to read an intelligence analysis being circulated within the administration that `we have demolished a budding relationship (with Iraq) by taking a tough position in opposition to chemical weapons,' " he wrote.

"Mr. Shultz also wrote that he quarreled with William J. Casey, then the director of central intelligence, over whether the United States should press for a new chemical weapons ban at the Geneva Disarmament Conference. Mr. Shultz declined further comment.

I believe Schultz. Casey was being logical -- under circumstances that revolted him. He wanted to do better (his emotional reactions, in meetings with me, were vivid) but he didn't know how. He wanted solutions - ends to the patterns of horror. End games.

At the same time, I stand by what I said on this thread in June 2001, that is posted on the Guardian.

http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/289 ... http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/290
http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/291 ... http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/292
http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/293 ... http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/294
http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/295 ...

When things are complicated, truth is our only hope: http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/296

I have some solutions. Solutions that I was assigned to get. Hard won. Expensive for me and others. Subject to rather extensive attention on this thread. Why doesn't anybody talk to me?

It seems to me that the answer is fairly obvious, but not to the credit of the United States of America.

rshow55 - 08:42pm Aug 18, 2002 EST (# 3806 of 3826)

Morality is an issue. Survival is a big issue.

Money matters, too. Especially when trillion dollar errors are involved. Not all big financial "errors" are made by private firms, such as Enron.

I have a P.E. ticket, and don't risk it lightly.

Essentially all of our manned and unmanned airplane development programs are based on assumptions about their relative invulnerability to air-air and ground-to-air missiles that are false.

Anybody want to contest this? There are some very straightforward ways of doing it.

There are also some straightforward ways of evaluating our "missile defense" programs MD1075-1076 rshow55 4/4/02 1:20pm

bbbuck - 10:36pm Aug 18, 2002 EST (# 3807 of 3826)
'How many[moms]do you have?'...'two'...'I see...where are they?'...'in the club with madame'...

rshow55, hey, someone was wanting your input on the 'bush forum'. They want to know about missiles and your security problems.

rshow55 - 06:02am Aug 19, 2002 EST (# 3808 of 3826)

bbbuck 8/18/02 10:36pm - - can you be specific enough so I can find the reference?

Thanks.

(18 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense