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.

almarst2003 - 09:55pm Mar 9, 2003 EST (# 9725 of 9726)

gisterme - 09:05pm Mar 9, 2003 EST (# 9724 of 9724) - "Where there's smoke, there's fire"

Could it be the smock is coming from the other direction?

Any explanation on the fact the nuclear material procurement document was a FAKE?

So far no trace of any aleged WMD?

However, I would not discard the possibility it will be found AFTER occupation. In fact, I would be very surprised if not. After all, its much less complicated then to implant 100,000 bodies into the ground in Kosovo, still not materialised but so "clearly" visible on the pictures "taken from the US satelites".

rshow55 - 10:01pm Mar 9, 2003 EST (# 9726 of 9726)
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's a very astute observation that no doubt has a significant aspect of truth to it. However, that notion collides head-on with the fact that some problems are too large to be solved or even managed by a single individual or a group of loose cannons.

There's a basic tension, right there - what you call a "head on collision". That's a challenge that has to be dealt with - in our society - both because of what we have to hope from new good answers - and what we have to fear from wrong answers.

I was selected and trained to attack and solve problems embedded - made difficult - by that tension.

AEA was a quite conscious effort to deal with that problem-tension - when technical innovation was needed - but couldn't be reasonably done by ordinary line or staff organizations. In the '60's, 70's, and 80's that tension was percieved by Casey and others as one of the most central, pressing problems facing our military - our government - and our larger society. Teller thought so too. I worked my heart out on the problems involved - and AEA was a quite good solution - well along the way to doing a great many things the nation needed, when I was injured in the line of duty.

There are times when you have to meet "contradictory" criteria - at different times (often alternately) or at different places.

Getting right answers - checking answers - and implementing the answers - are quite often different jobs. And ways have to be found to do these jobs well - without paralyzing fear or patterns that institutionalize stasis. Taking care of the people is key requirement.

We can do a lot better than we're doing.

I could be considerably more helpful if I wasn't, in every way that matters - an unemployable under house arrest. Putting the matter gently, I think the US government owes me more than that - certainly owes the AEA investors more than that - and by now - I think leaders of other nation states - who have a stake in getting some right answers on questions of fact - ought to ask for some answers as well.

I'll write more tomorrow.

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense