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 (6832 previous messages)

commondata - 10:05am Dec 18, 2002 EST (# 6833 of 6842)

rshow55 12/18/02 9:12am - 1. Missile defense is not only a bad strategic idea -- it is also a huge technical fraud, with no technical viability whatsoever, and that can be shown in public.

Is it though, rshow? This question has been bugging me; has the US military-political establishment wrong-footed all of us, or am I becoming a paranoid conspiracy theorist? On a technical level, this system makes no sense as missile defense. The people making decisions about this system must know that. Is this part of your premonition coming true?

It is now technically possible to shoot down every winged aircraft the US has, or can expect to build.

Could this be replaced by:

It will soon be technically possible for the US to shoot down every winged aircraft the rest of the planet has, or can expect to build.

How far and how fast will this initial prototype be rolled out across the planet?

mazza9 - 01:43pm Dec 18, 2002 EST (# 6834 of 6842)
"Quae cum ita sunt" Caesar's Gallic Commentaries

Although the recent anti missile test failed to intercept and destroy the incoming warhead, it did test the ABL's surveillance radar, targeting system and battle management software. The ABL will be able to bring down crusie missile which are a far easier target. In addition, recent reports that simulators are being modified to enable pilots to develop their skills in the employment of fighter borne laser weapons portends a time in the near future where directed energy weapons from fast moving fighter interceptors will knock all enemy air vehicles out of the sky.

It's sad that these funds have to be expended to defend against rogue states but until they are gone......

rshow55 - 08:05pm Dec 18, 2002 EST (# 6835 of 6842) 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.

commondata 12/18/02 10:05am - - - call me on the phone - I'd love to hear your voice. No, the basic laws of physics and combinatorial math aren't going to change.

If the US can't shoot down all winged aircraft from other countries - they should be able to. Visa versa, as well .

The US knows a good deal about the limitations of MD - it only "works" as a bluff.

If we could communicate better - and did - there would be fewer bluffs, less need of them -- and we'd all be safer. I'm feeling my "relentless optimism" a good deal tempered - but still feel that there is a lot we can reasonably hope for.

lunarchick - 08:08pm Dec 18, 2002 EST (# 6836 of 6842)

Good there's an upside to every downside Mr Poster.

There is no such thing as a rogueState ... rather, ROGUES within a State.

It's the MINDset .

It's the CULTURE - warped and off-course!

Cultures created by lie wrapped over lie.

Cultures that feed and nourish greed and political deformity.

~~~~~

So how to 'change' culture?

One way may be to create games with real rewards .... games that demand truth-answers.

Games that capture the imagination and draw in players.

Feelgood games ...

mazza9 - 09:04pm Dec 18, 2002 EST (# 6837 of 6842)
"Quae cum ita sunt" Caesar's Gallic Commentaries

Robert:

Are you saying that the THEL test where the laser beam shot down the artillery shell was a fluke? Is it all a sham? what is the basis for your prognostication?

lunarchick - 10:02pm Dec 18, 2002 EST (# 6838 of 6842)

Tactical High Energy Laser (THEL)

lunarchick - 10:05pm Dec 18, 2002 EST (# 6839 of 6842)

.

More Messages Recent Messages (3 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