New York Times on the Web Forums Resource Area for Forum Hosts and Moderators

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 - 05:37pm Apr 10, 2002 EST (# 1236 of 17697)
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.

Gisterme is a highly esteemed visiter to this thread - with hundreds of postings last year -but since March, an infrequent one. On 1:53 today I made a post that ends

" Just musing -- if I put on a suit, shined my shoes, and walked into the State Department - asking for permission to see some people -- what do you think might happen?

"I'd like to make a pitch to the Russian Embassy, and some other places, as well.

13 minutes later, gisterme posts - cites a posting I'm proud of, and stand by rshow55 3/28/02 6:17pm and goes on

gisterme: " Fortunately, people in general are not so stupid as you apparently assume, Robert. Even a fool couldn't fail to notice that your "kingdom" is very sparsly populated...

I certainly have no "kingdom" -- but I do believe that very many people, in the United States, and especially elsewhere in the world, are very concerned with things this administration is saying, on missile defense and other subjects. Including some distinguished columnists of the New York Times.

If you'll recall the story of "the Emperor's New Clothes" -- there was a near-unanimity of opinion. And then a shift of opinion. Such things can happen.

It happened with Enron , for example. The analogies between the "missile defense" boondoggle and Enron seem pretty close. A lot hidden. A lot of smoke and mirrors. Much more promised, and claimed, than was actually there.

rshow55 - 05:40pm Apr 10, 2002 EST (# 1237 of 17697)
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.

MD1076 rshow55 4/4/02 1:20pm includes this:

Challenge, questions, and invokation of the need for force:
MD728 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@13.RErUbPHeYTe.1139680@.f28e622/906... MD729 rshow55 3/20/02 9:32pm
MD730 rshow55 3/20/02 9:37pm

Counterchallenge:
MD764 gisterme 3/22/02 1:34pm

Comment and response:
MD780 manjumicha2001 3/23/02 2:28am ... MD783-784 rshow55 3/23/02 11:15am
MD84 rshow55 3/2/02 11:52am

Perhaps I have been moving slowly. One reason is that I've felt that things have been moving toward a situation where a lot of things could get solved. Another reason is that it is essential to get situations set up where right answers are possible -- rather than certain to be evaded.

Circumstances are coming into focus where right answers may be possible -- the credibility of the Bush adminstration outside the United States may be lower than the credibilty of any other administration in this century -- for very good reasons. Reasons that should concern responsible Americans.

Here are questions and issues set out in MD729 rshow55 3/20/02 9:32pm , that don't depend at all on my background, or on any classified material at all:

The technical questions set out in bold below may seem dry - and to many people, such as Professor Postol, they seem fully answered already. But the arguments involved with them haven't been fully set out by the standards expected in a court of law - - or the standards that are now possible on the internet, with some organization and umpring.

The arguments involved haven't been contested , with technical questions that required decision decided by very widely respected judges, for reasons that could themselves be judged.

The issues haven't been illustrated, numerically and pictorially, to the standards expected in a court of law - with arguments that would work for real juries.

But these questions could be answered to these high standards, and answered beyond any reasonable doubt.

With the whole world (and reponsible politicians) watching.

QUESTIONS: :

" How technically challenging are the missile defense programs that have been set out in public (laser and midcourse interception ) in terms of what is known, and what has been achieved, in the open engineering and scientific literature? Are the objectives for these specific kinds of systems compatible with the laws of physics? To work, these systems have to do specific things, and do these things together. Are the technical objectives these systems have to meet reasonable in terms of known laws of physics, and relevant experience in engineering?

" If function of these systems requires breakthroughs, compared to previous open literature theory or experience --- what are these breakthroughs? How do the results needed compare quantitatively to results that have been achieved in the open literature by engineers, applied physicists, or other people who measure carefully? If breakthroughs are required, how do they compare to test results that have been made available to date?

These missile defense programs need to be evaluated in a reasonable tactical context, subject to the countermeasures that can reasonably be expected and specified.

(16460 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Resource Area for Forum Hosts and Moderators Missile Defense