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.

gisterme - 05:16am Jul 22, 2003 EST (# 13073 of 17697)

lchic - 09:15pm Jul 6, 2003 EST (# 12866 of ...)

"...How many pairs of shoes could Emelda Marcos buy with $48B ?.."

Just check her closet. :-)

gisterme - 05:51am Jul 22, 2003 EST (# 13074 of 17697)

rshow55 - 03:27pm Jul 6, 2003 EST (# 12865 of ...)

http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?16@13.RErUbPHeYTe.0@40679d@.f28e622/14541

"...There are some tough, honest, capable people involved with the Osprey program. It seems likely that the Marines have been watching the contractors involved closely - and watching their own test programs closely. Some very tough tactical and strategic judgements are involved.

If the United States needs this capability - at b this price - ( more than 12 billion has been spent - and 458 Ospreys will cost 48 billion ) then we ought to think and work hard to find ways to make it less precarious..."

I couldn't agree more, Robert; but not because I think the military need is so urgent. Like so many other things that were developed as military applications (at great expense) the technology that the Osprey uses might really help out in the civilian world once all the bugs are worked out. "Motorways of the sea" might work okay in small countries that have a lot of sea coast. However, Osprey-like technology applied to civilian transport might just make a real difference in countries like the US where distances are vast, highways are overcrowded and people need to get from point "A" to point "B" quickly.

Conventional helecopters eliminate the need for the multi-thousand foot runways that other commuter aircraft need. The problem with helecopters is that they are slow and not very fuel efficient. An Osprey-like vehicle has the advantages of a helecoopter but is much faster and more fuel effiecient. 'Seems like a step in the right direction to me.

That's why I'd like to see the development work completed.

gisterme - 06:37am Jul 22, 2003 EST (# 13075 of 17697)

lchic - 11:06pm Jul 7, 2003 EST (# 12887 of ...) <a href="/webin/WebX?14@13.RErUbPHeYTe.0@.f28e622/14563">lchic 7/7/03 11:06pm</a>

"...California's Democrats show more interest in the rights of transgendered citizens or whales than, say, Latinos..."

Not the Democrats in general, just the people they seem to vote for. California democrats are so partisan that they will vote against anybody who does not run as a Democrat, regardles of how awful their own party's candidates may be.

"...The Republicans' leader in the Senate, Jim Brulte, threatened to campaign against any party member who voted for tax rises to solve the budget crisis (even though tax rises are inevitable). Partisan loyalty is more important than solving a statewide crisis..."

The thing you might not be aware of, lchic, is that when California's current governor, Gray Davis took office about five years ago, the state had a seven billion dollar budget surplus. That usually means that there has been some good fiscal management going on. Today, the state has a 38 billion dollar budget deficit. In my opinion, that's the result of fiscal incompetence. Even though having no money to spend seems so far to have not been any deterrent to Gov. Davis's spending habit, I think that the Republicans hope that not supporting that habit with tax increases will eventually make the governor come to his senses. It's not just a partisan issue.

The real flaw in California is not a mechanical one to do with how smoothly the machinery of government is working (though it plainly isn't doing very well). The real problem is that politicians have become divorced from the changing nature of their state..."

Umm, well, if Californians, wheter politicians or ordinary citizens, are suppsed to get used to the fact that their state's economy has gone from one of the most robust in the country to one that is now circling the drain, then it would seem they're not being very successful at it.

Governor Davis who was re-elected last year is now facing a recall election. It seems that this will be the first successful recall effort in the gubenatorial history of the US. That's mostly because in media interviews (with friendly interveiwers) just before the election Davis claimed that the California budget deficit was only about 8 billion dollars; "nothing we can't handle" he said. A couple of weeks after the election, after he was safely reelected, he had to admit that the deficit was really about 38 billion. The state's credit rating has been reduced and even it's bond ratings are now in danger. If that's the sort change you're talking about, you're right...there is a divorce going on.

gisterme - 06:41am Jul 22, 2003 EST (# 13076 of 17697)

lchic - 10:24am Jul 8, 2003 EST (# 12890 of ...) http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?16@13.RErUbPHeYTe.0@.f28e622/14566

"...nb : Sweden, with a lower per capita income than the US, has on average more functionally literate adults and fewer people living in poverty."

No doubt that's because Swedes are not compelled to be educated in the US public education system.

(4621 following messages)

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