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.

lchic - 06:49pm Sep 25, 2002 EST (# 4539 of 17697)
ultimately TRUTH outs : TRUTH has to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong foundation

$200 billion might help here:

"" The poverty rate exceeded 12 percent every year from 1980 to 1998. As the economy grew from 1993 to 2000, the rate plunged, to 11.3 percent from 15.1 percent, and the poverty rolls were reduced by 7.7 million people, to 31.6 million. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/25/national/25POVE.html

- back to holistic accounting-

Would it be better to produce more home-widgets for certain goods rather than blanket-import all?

Not a call to subsidise inefficient declining industry - rather - develop something NEW - the new the trend setting, the innovative, the dynamic - isn't this where future riches lie? ]

rshow55 - 09:58pm Sep 25, 2002 EST (# 4540 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.

Of course nobody missed it -- but the patterns of radio detection using timing, and passive "chirpers" set out in 4533 rshow55 9/25/02 4:38pm would detect "stealth" aircraft just about as easily as the unstealthy kind. The "stealth" coatings reflect just fine from indirect angles.

rshow55 - 10:00pm Sep 25, 2002 EST (# 4541 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.

Using the detection scheme of rshow55 9/25/02 4:38pm would radically outperform our best current radars, as well. Making "missile defense" a little more plausible. The vulnerability to decoys would remain - and make "missile defense" always much more expensive than missile offense.

rshow55 - 10:01pm Sep 25, 2002 EST (# 4542 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.

We're making trillion dollar procurement errors -- and making errors in tactics and doctrine that are reducing the security of the United States.

There are things people should check.

lchic - 10:03pm Sep 25, 2002 EST (# 4543 of 17697)
ultimately TRUTH outs : TRUTH has to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong foundation

One presumes Showalter is responding to Johnson here - what was his last moniker - 'commondata' ?

rshow55 - 10:07pm Sep 25, 2002 EST (# 4544 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.

"Chirpers" big enough to work to detect real combat airplanes at longer range, rather than model airplanes -- might cost less than $1000 each - and the recievers aren't fancy, either.

Our "stealth" planes would be especially vulnerable - since they are so slow, and have sacrificed so much for a specialized set of directional reflection characteristics.

The United States is not immune from the rule of law - - especially physical law -- and the idea that we can dominate the world, especially by bombing - is crazy.

That can be checked. We aren't talking "rocket science" here (though rocket science can be easy) -- we're talking technology much simpler than the technology we rely on to run our cell phone systems.

The U. S. Air Force should be ashamed of themselves - they've grossly oversold what they have to offer from a national security point of view.

(13153 following messages)

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