New York Times Readers Opinions
The New York Times

Home
Job Market
Real Estate
Automobiles
News
International
National
Washington
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
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 (8800 previous messages)

lchic - 02:05am Feb 11, 2003 EST (# 8801 of 8804)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

"We talk about the right, but we never talk about the left."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,893062,00.html

The difference is more than linguistic

Democrats are subject to the same thing Republicans are - big money," says Katha Pollitt, a columnist for the Nation. "What we think of as the left is really a collection of single or dual issues that network with each other but there really isn't a home for them. There are people doing good work in their community but they're not really hooking into the electoral process."

rshow55 - 06:34am Feb 11, 2003 EST (# 8802 of 8804) 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.

Spending Spree at the Pentagon http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/10/opinion/10MON1.html

A question arises whether there is anything in the way of logic or evidence that will get "members of the team" in the military-industrial complex (including NASA) to admit to anything that might significantly change program priorities - or devalue programs. The questions make a big difference when the issue is money and status. Similar big differences - plus additional differences of life and death, when the issue is war.

Shuttle Testing Suggested Wings Were Vulnerable By DAVID E. SANGER http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/10/national/nationalspecial/10SHUT.html

"As a result, said one engineer familiar with the discussions that took place at NASA in mid-January, the engineers who saw little risk from the debris that hit the Columbia's left wing had scant information to back up their assertion.

"People came to the conclusion that whatever damage happened was tolerable, but it's not clear that was based on any solid data," said the engineer, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because NASA had not allowed them to speak to reporters without prior authorization. "The testing data just wasn't there."

Far too often - there is no decent reason save continuation of expenditure for programs that reinforce America's committment to conflict.

Mystro a drum roll for these big-ticket items in procurement for the military industrial complex:

F/A-18E/F Fighter

F-22 Fighter

Joint Strike Fighter

C-17 Transport Aircraft

V-22 Osprey Aircraft

RAH-66 Comanche Helicopter

NSSN New Attack Submarine ("Virginia" Class)

Ballistic and National Missile Defense (BMD)

Not a single one of them is worthwhile from the viewpoint of a reasonable United States citizen, unconnected with the military or military contractors. The aircraft are not needed to respond to any credible threat -- and with advances in radar that are now either in place or possible, none are even viable. The Osprey is grossly defective. We don't need another submarine for either defensive or offensive purposes -- though the Navy and the contractors may want it.

NONE of the above are projects that American citizens are enthusiastic about -- the military doesn't even bother to "sell" them very hard.

Missile Defense is different. It makes sense to people -- it promises something people would like to have. But it doesn't work technically, and can't -- (at least when reasonable countermeasures are considered) and it is associated with prohibitive diplomatic and financial costs.

No winners in the list above -- except for the contractors.

DrumRoll:

http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md7000s/md7449.htm

http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md8000s/md8069.htm

http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md9000s/md9281.htm

http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md9000s/md9988.htm

http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_1000s/1317.htm

Is there anything that merits checking - that causes action to be taken? There needs to be.

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 2003 The New York Times Company | Privacy Policy | Contact Us