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?

nomenclature - 08:05pm Oct 9, 2001 EST (#10209 of 10219)

See in 3D what a crazy deconstructionist did with tragic repercussions - thankfully not nuclear!

Physical sorting is happening here in New York and it will take forever.

Forceful sorting is happening in mid-Asia close to Kashmir - where nuclear tests happen.

"India and Pakistan are on the threshold of nuclear weaponization in a region that has significant border disputes and the world's highest incident of terrorist violence".

rshowalter - 08:17pm Oct 9, 2001 EST (#10210 of 10219)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

I hope nomenclature 10/9/01 8:05pm .... is considered on-topic -- and not only because the NSF images are striking and moving. Also because, even if we are focused on technical issues alone, issues of context surely do count.

I'm prepared to argue, using numbers and data, and subject to umpired checking, that the chance of current proposals involving lasar weapons, or the weapons systems described in the Coyle Report being tactically useful is less than one chance in 100 - in terms of usual, reasonable estimation procedures no matter HOW MUCH money is spent.

That can only be an argument - - because it will depend on estimates based on what can be done in terms of what is known in the open literature.

But the estimates can be clear, and clear enough that elected officials could use them for much better estimates, subject to more exact information, some of it classified.

Even so, motivation and context matters. Because we need to have a sense of why we are doing what we are doing.

I hope almarst takes an interest. These questions may be "off center" in terms of his interest. But even so, they connect tightly.

nomenclature - 08:34pm Oct 9, 2001 EST (#10211 of 10219)

Okay so how does this chequeChecking begin?

rshowalter - 08:44pm Oct 9, 2001 EST (#10212 of 10219)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

It could begin, effectively, with d*mn few phone calls. But because of the inhibitions to listening that people have, it would have to involve the right people and the right institutions.

. . .

Or I don't see how it can happen at all.

rshowalter - 08:48pm Oct 9, 2001 EST (#10213 of 10219)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

I think, for this, the maintance of focus might be very important.

When Pasteur focused the cell theory, and established the germ theory of disease, these ideas had been "knocking around" for a long while. But he got them clear.

And explained them.

From the focused right answer , an explosive change and improvement in the human condition occurred.

nomenclature - 08:50pm Oct 9, 2001 EST (#10214 of 10219)

inhibitions to listening

Why would anyone in our country suffer from inhibition, when this is the most open, honest, and democratic country in the world! You're far of the mark here. People do listen!!! Okay poster, you have to agree with my point - right? Or are you running down that pathway of hearing, listening. listening with understanding, semi-comprehension, full comprehension and all that stuff?

nomenclature - 08:51pm Oct 9, 2001 EST (#10215 of 10219)

Now you're bringing 'eyes' into it!

rshowalter - 08:51pm Oct 9, 2001 EST (#10216 of 10219)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

We could start with something simple , but connected and important. Given what we know, and can calculate, on the basis of the open literature are lasar weapons possible or not?

From that answer, a lot would flow.

But here's a problem. A key point.

In controversy, once a decisive fact is clarified , somebody loses.

That has to be taken to closure.

The credibility of an idea, viable before, has to die.

rshowalter - 08:53pm Oct 9, 2001 EST (#10217 of 10219)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

I'm concerned about avoiding death and injury to people . To flesh and blood.

To avoid that, there are times when bad ideas have to be killed -- that is, denied credibility among people who are socially credible themselves.

That means checking, when stakes are high, has to be morally forcing.

(2 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense