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 - 10:46am Sep 24, 2002 EST (# 4501 of 4511)
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.

I'm no prude, and I know that American democracy can have a very wide tolerance. I don't ask for perfection from others, or expect it from myself. I'm no longer the young man who was recruited, and made serious promises many years ago. As Robert Bork said . . .

" The young are naturally romantic, and given to moral absolutes that necessarily make the real world of compromise, half-measures, and self-seeking appear corrupt.

...Chapter 1 .... Robert H. Bork, SLOUCHING TOWARDS GOMORRAH: Modern Liberalism and American Decline

But all decent human beings are "romantic" to some extent, and need to be. Not only the young. The "appearance" of corruption can become real corruption, without the disciplining of fact, and openness.

We all live in a real world of compromise, half-measures, and an avoidance of too-harsh realities. People couldn't live any other way - and it ought to be no surprise when muddles and messes happen. Most times, moral indignation may not be very useful.

This time, perhaps it might be.

And for me, sometimes, there's only so much room for extenuation -- sometimes duty really is duty.

There are a lot of questions that ought to be asked of subject matter in "The National Security Strategy of the United States" http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/20/politics/20STEXT_FULL.html .

Some of them involve missile defense - and other technical issues about what our military can do, and expect, now and in a clearly forseeable future.

I often ask what I ought to do - how I can do my duty - in ways that Bill Casey would approve of - placed as I am, knowing what I know, with the skills I have, and concerned as I am that the United States government is making serious mistakes, recklessly endangering the security and the prosperity of this nation - and imposing grave risks and costs on the world, as well.

In "The National Security Strategy of the United States" http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/20/politics/20STEXT_FULL.html we are assuming not only military supremacy for the United States - which may indeed be possible -- but a kind of military sepremacy that is technically insane - provably unreasonable and reckless.

We are assuming that our Air Force, which happens to be invulnerable now, will remain so for the indefinite future. An enormous amount of our military posture is being bet on just exactly that assumption This is a rediculous, provably false, outrageously reckless assumption. A related assumption, expressed by Wolfowitz in The Sunshine Warrior by BILL KELLER http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/22/magazine/22WOLFOWITZ.html and by other military people in many other places - that the United States can defeat our adversaries with almost no losses, is irresponsible, too.

These assumptions just aren't so. It is in the national interest that we understand this - because our welfare (and ofen, our decency) depend on wise use of true information - - not dependence on fraud, wishful thinking, and folly.

lchic - 10:47am Sep 24, 2002 EST (# 4502 of 4511)

I'm for Transparency!

rshow55 - 10:54am Sep 24, 2002 EST (# 4503 of 4511)
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.

U.S. Suspects Ukraine of Selling Radar to Iraq By MICHAEL WINES http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/24/international/europe/24UKRA.html

The US is concerned about sales of radars that will certainly be improved - that can be radically improved.

Do people know how easy it is to shoot down "stealth" airplanes? If not now, soon?

3006 rshow55 7/11/02 8:09pm has details that bear discussing, before the US gets insanely overconfident about its unchallengable dominance.

Including this and more:

On basic issues of MD technology - - suppose you have working MD technology? (I think there are some things that can be done.)

If those things are done - then most of our proposed expenditure for manned aircraft becomes obsolete -- because if MD becomes practical, manned aircraft are sitting ducks.

They aren't so far from being sitting ducks already.

(8 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense