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?

gisterme - 12:52pm Jan 3, 2002 EST (#10628 of 10657)

guy_catelli 1/2/02 11:02pm

"if there are 100 people in a village, and if a single family of 5 people produce 40% of the wealth of that village, then if that family puts up a fence, shutters its windows, and bolts its doors, their friends(?) and neighbors will be deeply offended..."

That's some dark humor, guy. Would that family become a sort of "village within a village"? That sounds like a step back toward feudalism.

But hasn't a village always been a gathering of folks for mutual benefit? Suppose the 40%-producing family invited everyone except criminals to bring their 60% along and abide within their house? In that case, would those folks be so deeply offended then if the doors and windows were securely barred? Mightn't they be more offended if they were not?

"...it would be cruel to 'force' the criminal class to engage in these exertions..."

Cruel indeed! :-) Perhaps under those conditions many among the "criminal class" (your term) might see the benefit of finding ways to join the village.

Meanwile, back on earth, :-), an effective ballistic missile shield should be able to reduce the danger to all innocents everywhere from the threat of a small-scale ballistic missile attack. Likewise effective action against other means of terrorist activity should reduce the danger for everybody from those means of attack.

To me, it seems prudent to do both so long as the threats exist.

gisterme - 01:21pm Jan 3, 2002 EST (#10629 of 10657)

lchic 1/2/02 10:45pm

"...The way to look at this is to ask 'how much money was laid out re Nukes'then ask 'had this same amount of money been used to upgrade conditions in selected countries and get their economies on track - would the events of September have happend?'..." that is would the same disaffection have been in existence.

Disaffection has existed as long as history and that's not the way to look at this, lchic. There were no nukes in the world but the holocost still happened. Do you think the Manhattan project would have even occured if WWII had not taken place? History is a continuum. Nobody can say how the world would be different today if, say, Stalin had decided to withdraw from Europe after WWII because he didn't.

Crying today about money spent a half centry ago won't help tomorrow. Why not just be glad that the large nuclear arsenals in the world are being scaled back (an old problem being solved today) and look ahead to how current problems might be solved?

A terrorist group possessing a single nuclear-armed ballistic missile could surpass the tragedy of the holocost in a single day. That's a current problem.

gisterme - 01:25pm Jan 3, 2002 EST (#10630 of 10657)

Back later.

gisterme - 01:29pm Jan 3, 2002 EST (#10631 of 10657)

lchic 1/3/02 3:35am

"...The current thinking that views people only in terms of their interaction within a workplace - sends a lot of people to the wall with idle time and no way of making even a meagre living."

That sounds downright Darwinian, lchic.

Back later...really, this time.

rshow55 - 01:37pm Jan 3, 2002 EST (#10632 of 10657)

"A terrorist group possessing a single nuclear-armed ballistic missile could surpass the tragedy of the holocost in a single day. That's a current problem."

It absolutely is. A terrorist group possessing any other means of delivery posts the same threat, as well. That problem is no less current.

Nation states pose risks, too. Both intentional ones, and ones due to "accident liabilities" that are huge, because the stockpiles are huge, and could end the world. Is an accident where US or Russian missiles go off like a string of firecrackers "unthinkable?" The failure of Enron was similarly unthinkable, just a few months ago -- to just about everybody involved -- including some people with close associations to the Bush administration, which is now making life and death decisions about so much, including nuclear risks.

We need to think seriously about the problem of nuclear risk, and how we can solve it, in the world as it is.

With the best answers, in the real world, that we can get.

And a healthy degree of fear, and fear of mistakes.

Checking is very important.

Morality is, too. Mass murder, at WTC scale is WRONG. So is mass murder at scales 100's and 1000's of times larger. If enough people were sure enough of that basic point, a lot might clarify.

lchic - 02:14pm Jan 3, 2002 EST (#10633 of 10657)

Darwinism is about survival Economies are the same ... yet ...
As Darwin might have noted
COOPERATION and working TOGETHER
are a part of many human and animal social systems
So the economic policy of throwing people to the wall/wind has to be questioned.

(24 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense