New York Times Readers Opinions
The New York Times
Home
Job Market
Real Estate
Automobiles
News
International
National
Washington
Campaigns
Business
Technology
Science
Health
Sports
New York Region
Education
Weather
Obituaries
NYT Front Page
Corrections
Opinion
Editorials/Op-Ed
Readers' Opinions


Features
Arts
Books
Movies
Travel
Dining & Wine
Home & Garden
Fashion & Style
New York Today
Crossword/Games
Cartoons
Magazine
Week in Review
Multimedia
College
Learning Network
Services
Archive
Classifieds
Book a Trip
Personals
Theater Tickets
Premium Products
NYT Store
NYT Mobile
E-Cards & More
About NYTDigital
Jobs at NYTDigital
Online Media Kit
Our Advertisers
Member_Center
Your Profile
E-Mail Preferences
News Tracker
Premium Account
Site Help
Privacy Policy
Newspaper
Home Delivery
Customer Service
Electronic Edition
Media Kit
Community Affairs
Text Version
TipsGo to Advanced Search
Search Options divide
go to Member Center Log Out
  

 [F] 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.


Earliest Messages Previous Messages Recent Messages Outline (5392 previous messages)

kalter.rauch - 06:17am Oct 31, 2002 EST (# 5393 of 5396)
Earth vs <^> <^> <^>

rshow55 10/31/02 5:41am

Are you taking AW&ST to task then??? In the 30+ years I've been reading it, I've found it to be consistently reliable, though generally conservative to the point of stodginess.

Now, as for microwaves......you mean to tell me you find a 1000W oven comparable to a device putting out 10s of BILLIONS of watts. It may look comforting in print to confine the radiation behind little Faraday cages even though I KNOW there are those out there who are chuckling at your convenient omission of significant leakage through modern microwave ovens...not to mention wavelength or bandwidth. I've seen ants walk around INSIDE an activated oven...impervious because they are SMALLER than the wavelength of emission!!!

Secondly, your comparison of these emitters to bombs and bullets is a TOTAL straw man!!! The purpose is (presently) to destroy the delicate electronic controllers of modern weapon systems. You can't tell me you're unaware of the decades old threat presented by the crude, broad-band EMP effects on circuitry by nuclear bomb detonations in the upper atmosphere. These new devices are designed to match the resonant Q-factors of solid-state electronics. Vacuum tubes and heavy guage wiring MAY be somewhat resistant...BUT COMPLETELY irrelevant insofar as, say, high speed digital targeting radar systems for AA missiles...not to mention the missiles themselves.......

???

Look, I gave you a current industry source, and Winn Schwartau's book has been around for almost a decade. Get ahold of THAT volume...it's heavily padded with sources and footnotes, etc.

rshow55 - 06:35am Oct 31, 2002 EST (# 5394 of 5396) Delete Message
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.

Kalter, you're a dishonest idiot, but I'll post this and get back to you.

More Messages Recent Messages (2 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Your Preferences

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  / Missile Defense





Home | Back to Readers' Opinions Back to Top


Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company | Privacy Policy | Contact Us