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 - 01:36pm Jan 31, 2003 EST (# 8402 of 8413)
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.

If you click "rshow" above it includes this and much more:

A recounting of what this Missile Defense thread has done since then is set out in Psychwar, Casablance - - and terror from #151 http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/159 on. Links before March 1, 2002 are no longer on the web, but are available on CD. Discussion of this thread continues from #265 http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/281

If you want a sense of how good this thread is -- sample lchic's work ! - (search lchic ) - - . You'll find a wealth of thoughtful, wide-ranging citations. I think she's the most valuable mind I've ever encountered. Search lchic on other NYT threads and on the Guardian Talk threads, too. You'll be impressed. Lchic and I are partners on this thread - and she is much the better half.

I think we're both proud of the accomplishments described and put in context in MD1999 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@93.g86tafTq1jx.165264@.f28e622/2484

That work involved great contributions from "stand-ins" who have taken the role of senior Russian and American officials - - a role that has continued since March 1, 2000 207 http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/218

. .

If people with responsible power showed some decency, judgement, and courage - we could have some happy endings - rather than tragedy.

How a Story is Shaped. http://www.fortunecity.com/lavendar/ducksoup/555/storyshape.html

A Communication Model http://www.worldtrans.org/TP/TP1/TP1-17.HTML

bbbuck - 01:38pm Jan 31, 2003 EST (# 8403 of 8413)

It may be hot air. But at least I don't spew out 1000000's of cubic feet of it.

lchic - 01:39pm Jan 31, 2003 EST (# 8404 of 8413)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

MIT professor to discuss missile defense system (Aug 2000) By Russ Brickey Staff Writer

The United States Department of Defense's $60 billion missile defense system — designed to shoot down long range missiles and safeguard the United States from nuclear attack — may not be all it is cracked up to be

In fact, it may not work at all according to one man.

In a recent speech, President George W. Bush declared his administration's intention to continue research into the missile defense system and even to expand the program to include sea-based launchings.

An outspoken critic of the project, Theodore A. Postol, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor and Star Wars expert, will speak on campus Thursday afternoon about the impracticality of this system.

"This is a case where the best people, not necessarily the anti-establishment people, are against (the missile defense system)," says Purdue physics professor Earl Prohosky. "And (Postol) is one of the best people to have an opinion."

Postol's talk at Purdue will cover the "mid-phase" defense system, which is designed to shoot down missiles in the near vacuum of space before re-entering earth's atmosphere and the inability of this system to tell the difference between a warhead and a simple balloon decoy.

Postol, an award-winning scientist and former college football lineman, has long been a thorn in the side of the electronic defense industry.

In 1992, Postol challenged the Army's findings that the Patriot Missile, a widely touted anti-short range missile defense system, had a 96 percent success rate in shooting down Iraqi SCUD missiles in the Gulf War.

Postol and an MIT colleague discovered most of the Patriot missiles were failures, allowing still active SCUD warheads to fall on the ground.

Postol's conclusions made national headlines and the manufacturer of the Patriot system, the Raytheon Corporation, withdrew $400,000 worth of research support from MIT.

Postol refused to back down and internal Raytheon memos showed that Postol was in danger of losing his government clearance from irate Army officials. It was only at the intervention of Congressman John Conyers (D-Mich.), that Postol finally kept his clearance.

Then, in May 2000, Postol sent a letter to White House Chief of Staff John Podesta, detailing allegations of failure and even outright fraud when recent missile defense tests were conducted.

Among other claims in his letter, Postol pointed out the inability of the system to distinguish between mock-warheads and a decoy made of a balloon. ... more

http://www.purdueexponent.org/2001/08/29/campus/postol.html

lchic - 01:42pm Jan 31, 2003 EST (# 8405 of 8413)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Poster - your hot air is metered by the unit - and you get paid by the Dept of 'misInform-ation'!

(8 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense