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 - 08:14pm Sep 23, 2002 EST (# 4494 of 4496)
Can we do a better job of finding truth? YES. Click "rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have done and worked for on this thread.

When I came on this thread, in Sept 25, 2000 rshow55 4/21/02 3:14pm , I was terribly concerned about nuclear dangers - and felt, for reasons that still seem sensible in retrospect - http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@247.xGHYaq2NAKx.2@.ee79f4e/1556 Here are some postings from that time:

We need to take down our nuclear weapons (NOT our conventional weapons) based on the rational distrust and fear both the U.S. and Russia have. . . . . rshow55 4/21/02 3:14pm

We should work with rational fear and distrust, which we have in abundance, and not ask for love and trust between America and Russia, which we can never expect.

rshowalt - 05:54pm Oct 5, 2000 EDT (#380

There was an interesting detail in this 60 minutes 2 show. The implication was clear that the people in charge of firing the missiles, on both sides, expected them to be taken down. But the order to do so never came through.

The political and negotiating authorities of the two sides, in interaction, weren't able to do what almost everybody involved wanted to do.

They were hoping for a new dawn of trust. Trust didn't come. Why not take advantage of the the distrust we have?

Since the fall of the Soviet Union, almost all the assumptions about controls, and invulnerability of those controls, have been shown false by internet experience.

Does anybody LIKE these weapons? Why not take them down? People who know the situation use the word "hair trigger" to describe current deployment, and with classification rules in place, it isn't possible nor is it desirable to add too much detail to this.

My own view is that there's about a 10%-30% chance of the world ending, per year, from now on, until these weapons are taken down, or the world ends. I'd be grateful for a chance to describe, to authorities, with some trusted journalists watching, why I think so. (Others are not a lot more optimistic than I am - General Horner, for instance, thinks odds are good that an American city will blow up this decade. I agree with that, but am more concerned, because I think our missiles would be likely to fire, and destroy the world, if that happened.) A problem is, who can check, with classification rules as they are? Those rules are set up so that nothing that actually matters can be checked with decent confidence.

Just a note: The intelligence agencies are in the deception business, and they busily decieve each other, at all sorts of levels. Their bookeeping is terrible, and they tell each other so many things that aren't so that they are singularly ill qualified to check anything at all. These guys are sloppy.

Challenge: Can anyone in the government prove, by the ordinary usages, that I've ever had any access to classified information, of any kind, ever? Any at all? That ought to be easy to do. I bet they can't do it.

Recently: Unseen: A Special Section on Intelligence http://www.nytimes.com/indexes/2002/09/11/weekinreview/

Now, these are the guys we are trusting to check our control systems, and negotiating stances, for reliability.

We're betting our lives on their reliability. And these folks are unbelievably sloppy, and have been telling so many lies, for so long, that they barely know whether they are coming or going. The only know that, no matter what, the rule is "hide it."

I believe that, our missile deployments are terribly dangerous, and we should take them down. On the basis of distrust and mutual fear we can do it, and do it soon. All we need, and this is especially on the American side, is a change of heart.

lunarchick - 11:31pm Oct 5, 2000 EDT (#381

a change of heart .... or a survival brain?

The survival brain enables proactive reaction prior to danger. This is danger, but we are not holistically reacting. Suggests that people do not

rshow55 - 08:19pm Sep 23, 2002 EST (# 4495 of 4496)
Can we do a better job of finding truth? YES. Click "rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have done and worked for on this thread.

lchic: October 5- 2000 -- Suggests that people do not have full knowledge of fact and implications. Suggests that peace foundations haven't marketed the 'message', haven't positioned it for distain and the question is why?

America isn't willing to pay it's dues the the United Nations to enable function, and yet spends $25Billion a year maintaining it's worthless nuclear arsnal.

Were $1billion allocated to 25 world places of need it would do much to raise the quality of life of deserving people.