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 (6241 previous messages)

kalter.rauch - 05:46am Nov 24, 2002 EST (# 6242 of 6246)
Earth vs <^> <^> <^>

rshow55 11/22/02 7:37pm

Anybody who thinks that

"If the missile's guidance system can "see" the target the target will almost always be hit even if it is maneuvering. " would dismiss that as a coincidence.

If gisterme , or anybody else, can find an engineer, with a name and an engineering ticket to put at risk, who'd say

"If the missile's guidance system can "see" the target the target will almost always be hit even if it is maneuvering. "

and say that subject to crossexamination - I'd be quite surprised. The statement is grossly false.

Rshow......SHUT UP!!! Your point is, within the limits of technical failure......MOOT...MOOT...MOOT!!!

Your point was made practically irrelevant with even the primitive German photoelectric targeting systems in WWII.

Face it, Mr. Demagogue, your interregnum is about at an end. All you have to rely on anymore is the laziness of your gullible disciples in not pushing a few buttons to find out the truth for themselves .

lunarchick - 08:02am Nov 24, 2002 EST (# 6243 of 6246)

:) SARANDON - will SHE run for PRESIDENT ????

What do you think - Janet!?

The country (USA) was founded on QUESTIONING

With her Rocky-Horror qualification ... she might well make a good President ... 'It's Time' a smart woman had Office ... Time too that MeatLoaf hit the Charts again!

almarst2002 - 02:19pm Nov 24, 2002 EST (# 6244 of 6246)

Full text: bin Laden's 'letter to America' - http://www.observer.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,845725,00.html

lunarchick - 02:33pm Nov 24, 2002 EST (# 6245 of 6246)

Not a visionary phrase within it as to how all the rhetoric would move to make the Arab Economy rise .... keep the oil bin ... fill up the camel and forget the foreign exchange !

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