New York Times Readers Opinions
The New York Times
Job Market
Real Estate
New York Region
NYT Front Page
Readers' Opinions

Dining & Wine
Home & Garden
Fashion & Style
New York Today
Week in Review
Learning Network
Book a Trip
Theater Tickets
Premium Products
NYT Store
NYT Mobile
E-Cards & More
About NYTDigital
Jobs at NYTDigital
Online Media Kit
Our Advertisers
Your Profile
E-Mail Preferences
News Tracker
Premium Account
Site Help
Privacy Policy
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 (5506 previous messages)

rshow55 - 10:44am Nov 6, 2002 EST (# 5507 of 5512) 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. link doesn't work.

I'm VERY interested in the piece on spines Misshaped 'spines' suggest new schizophrenia theory . . . I've suggested that spines are memory logic elements - and resonsant geometry would be key to function.

Laser weapon destroys artillery fire 13:53 06 November 02 . . . shows impressive results.

rshow55 - 10:56am Nov 6, 2002 EST (# 5508 of 5512) 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.

manjumicha 11/6/02 10:33am . . what's the "that" you're referring to?

If it is about the technical point set out in rshow55 11/6/02 8:24am . . the guardian link has much detail.

Point is that it is easy to get very high resolution radio ranging (data inputs) - - and also easy to solve differential equations useful for target interception - good enough to approximate the performance of animals like bats. With that, military technology that's forty years old can be MUCH more effective - something much on some senior people's minds in the '60's - when it was clear (and reasonably so) that cracking the differential equations of tracking could completely shift the balances of military power with the Russians. Details are set out from - - with logic before and after.

manjumicha - 11:03am Nov 6, 2002 EST (# 5509 of 5512)

Well, laser based defense programs have been around (at least active research on it) decades.......probably this and other strategic defense researches have prompted the counter reactions that we have observed for last two shift towards usage of tactical nuclear weapons (yes you guessed it right, even small scale nuclear artillary shells) since any small blask even from a few miles away will generate sufficient "high energy" rays to disable any defensive system unless of course such system is built on "crystal" technology of the lost Atlantis :-)...I am not sure if the defensive coating of electronic circuits have advanced enough (or the physics of it will allow) to protect them from those destructive rays....somthign to think about....actions and reactions....goes on and on...and has gone on almost from the beginning....

manjumicha - 11:05am Nov 6, 2002 EST (# 5510 of 5512)


I will check them later but for now gotta go...later

rshow55 - 11:29am Nov 6, 2002 EST (# 5511 of 5512) 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.

That was the big secret problem people were most interested in - though there were other much less secret, but sensitive problems - including one on coupled differential equations - and some other things.

People felt, quite simply, that if the Russians cracked that one before us, they could shoot down everything we flew within months - and their attitude about it might be judged better if you've recently seen, or remember, the movie Thirteen Days - about the Cuban missile crisis.

I've been trying to bring in that information, according to Casey's instructions since the early 90's (and Casey gave reasonable instructions) - since 1996, in interaction with the TIMES - and finally, after gisterme said to go ahead - and after plenty of effort to get the information in through channels - I put it on the web. Because finally, that seemed the thing I could do that was most in the national interest.

That "secret" was GOING to be discovered - and destabilize MANY assumptions and military balances - and to disclose it was to diffuse some key risks - rather than leave a "time bomb" laying around, to go off at random and maybe destroy the world.

More Messages Recent Messages (1 following message)

 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