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?

Read Debates, a new Web-only feature culled from Readers' Opinions, published every Thursday.

rshow55 - 09:15am Jan 22, 2002 EST (#10952 of 10987)

This thread has been interesting, these last few days. MD10909 rshow55 1/20/02 7:56pm included this:

"If people were really FOR missile defense (that could work) they'd be anxious to discuss reasons why things couldn't work. Because hardware that works militarily has to work.

" I'm for reducing risks from weapons of mass destruction, of all kinds, in the most cost effective way possible.

Jan 20 ended with a question from Mazza, in essence "what makes you think that reflective decals can be built?" That was a point much discussed on this thread, and Mazza knew it well. It gave me good reason to explain how reflective decals could be built, in more detail. mazza9 1/20/02 10:08pm

rshow55 - 09:21am Jan 22, 2002 EST (#10953 of 10987)

Yesterday was interesting on this board. I answered Mazza. I also suggested, for reasons that I feel this thread reinforces, that "enron" become a verb. Mazza, and gisterme, in my view, offer many clear examples of "enronnation."

In MD10920 rshow55 1/21/02 2:45pm I showed how, by replacing transparent plastics with different indices of refraction for the zinc sulfide and magnesium flouride that the demo in http://www.phy.davidson.edu/jimn/Java/Coatings.htm happened to choose, "99.9% or 99.9999% reflection for the specific frequency of the COIL system (which has been published) is achievable, without anything fancy, in a flexible, easily made decal."

The consequences are clear. The ABL system is entirely useless as a weapons system, and so the program to develop it isn't worth continuing. Nor is any other MD system that depends on laser weapons. MD10922 rshow55 1/21/02 3:04pm

Since that time there have been 30 postings - mostly involving stunningly evasive "enronnation" on the part of gisterme and Mazza .

rshow55 - 09:21am Jan 22, 2002 EST (#10954 of 10987)

Fundamental questions need to be asked. We're dealing with fraud here, or an avoidance of mistakes very near it. It is in the national interest to get right answers. But supporters of MD programs that can't have any real military use seem to have other interests -- perhaps no more credible than one might expect from the "elites" associated so closely with Enron. MD10880-10883 rshow55 1/19/02 2:49pm

mazza9 - 10:10am Jan 22, 2002 EST (#10955 of 10987)
Louis Mazza

RShow55:

You voluminous prognostications have ranged far afield re the forum topic. You seem to take five postings where succinct, telegraphic communications are called for. I don't know how many of your postings I "blew off" just because you had posted 10 or more musings in a row with no discernible content.

Remember why you were blocked? Now that the NY Times is no longer moderating this forum you feel that you have the license to hijack this forum for your own use.

Reminder: This forum is about "MISSILE DEFENSE". If you and your henchman lchic can't stay on subject then take your blather elsewhere. Oh, and namecalling is childish and churlish!

LouMazza

rshow55 - 10:35am Jan 22, 2002 EST (#10956 of 10987)

MD1071 rshowalt 1/8/02 9:07am includes this:

Search this thread. Look at Lchic's and Lunarchick's contributions. There are very many, and you'd be hard pressed, at random, to find examples where her contributions are not either intellectually interesting, or stimulating, or constructive, or all three.

Now, search "Mazza" and affine pseudonyms. You'll be hard pressed to find any that are even honest, and few that are distinguished, in my opinion.

mazza9 - 10:56am Jan 22, 2002 EST (#10957 of 10987)
Louis Mazza

RShow55:

Your opinion. Fine.

I use my given name and although my thread name changed when I suffered a major computer crash, you will find all my postings are my best take at the subject at hand. I must admit that I was assigned to a SAC Wing and was intimatley familiar with Bomber and Missile operations. I was tasked to pull an operational inspection while I was assigned to the 91st Missile Wing. I visited several missile silos and I remember checking the astrotracker view port that was used to align and target the missile. Like any tourist, I reached throught the port and touched the missile,(actually the external coating on the RV). It was awe inspiring to "touch" the demon. I remember being on hand when a B-52 was being put on alert. One of my friends was on the crew. He asked me to join him in checking the bomb bay to insure the weapons had been loaded! We looked into the bay and there they were. To me they looked like 6' long pieces of sewer pipe which belied their awesome nature.

I know what I know and have experienced. Your take is no where near the truth.

LouMazza

(30 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense