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 - 02:34pm Jan 25, 2002 EST (#11045 of 11056)

I'm not asking anyone to "take my word" for anything. MD10764 rshow55 1/14/02 7:36pm reads in part:

Right answers, on this subject matter, are worth getting. In the national interest, and the interest of the whole world. With some cooperation from the Bush administration, so that clear, unclassified questions could be answered by real people, with real names and real P.E. tickets, I believe that nongovernmental resources could be brought to bear to get this done. Contested questions of fact or analysis, on unclassified but technically decisive issues could, I believe, be determined, in ways that would work in public, by "umpires" - operating in the open, who are responsible for preparing the professional engineering exams in the relevant fields, in the US and other countries with analogous credentialling.

That would get a long way to closure about facts.

I suggest that the whole thing could be done on the internet, with anyone interested in the whole world watching.

A lot of waste and wasted time would be avoided. The nation, and the world, would be safer. Missile defense is a valid concern. There are strong reasons to be concerned about weapons of mass destruction of all kinds, and the ways they might be delivered.

But we need to deal with these issues in ways that can work .

rshow55 - 02:50pm Jan 25, 2002 EST (#11046 of 11056)

MD6947 rshowalter 7/11/01 8:28pm reads in part

On the matter of testing, and the general need for technical sanity . . . I'm very glad that Senator Levin comes from Michigan , capital of the auto industry, and a place where people can judge the difficulties in the execution of complex systems.

Missile Defense is a lot more complex, and has tigher tolerances, than auto manufacture -- but it seems to me that it is enough to know how difficult auto manufacture is, to judge how crazy the administration's proposals are. These issues can be CHECKED. By real engineers, with real names, in public (preferably with details posted for inspection on the net) with credentials at stake. The issues that matter, on the proposals so far, are unclassified. (references follow.) . . .

I'm prepared to go forward with much of the checking that can be applied to missile defense on the basis of the most fundamental facts, which are all in the open literature. I can get good engineers to assist with that. Many of the basic facts, including the fact that it is easy to immunize a missile or warhead from lasar damage (something the contractors must have known for years) are in this thread. http://www.phy.davidson.edu/jimn/Java/Coatings.htm

rshow55 - 02:54pm Jan 25, 2002 EST (#11047 of 11056)

The administration may think that politicians "can be bought." Well, sometimes. But even when they have taken contributions, they make an effort, especially when the public is engaged, to act in the national interest. Representative Billy Tauzin may be a notable example, on matters relating to ENRON.

Americans are, to quote that title of a good novel, " capable of honor."

Since that's true, we ought to be able to find ways to adjust our "missile defense" efforts so that the quotes above can be removed, and adjust our nuclear and other military balances so that they actually serve the national interest, with regard to the fact that defense is one major national need -- but one that has to fit with the others.

rshow55 - 03:52pm Jan 25, 2002 EST (#11048 of 11056)

Accounting may seem a "mundane" exercise. But on both money, and matters of technical fact, it is essential in our world. One need not ask for perfection. As Robert Bork said . . .

" The young are naturally romantic, and given to moral absolutes that necessarily make the real world of compromise, half-measures, and self-seeking appear corrupt.

...Chapter 1 .... Robert H. Bork, SLOUCHING TOWARDS GOMORRAH: Modern Liberalism and American Decline

But all decent human beings are "romantic" to some extent . . . The "appearance" of corruption can become real corruption, without the disciplining of fact, and openness.

We all live in a real world of compromise, half-measures, and an avoidance of too-harsh realities. People couldn't live any other way - and it ought to be no surprise when muddles and messes happen.

Most times, moral indignation may not be very useful. People go ahead and fix things, and move on.

Why not fix the MD fiasco, in the national interest, now?

lchic - 03:59pm Jan 25, 2002 EST (#11049 of 11056)

France: an appologist for Algerian war crimes (torture) was fined - hugely, as was his publisher.

Future wise raises the point - would an appologist who tried to rationalise the use of Nukes - sometime hence - be subject to a fine for rationalistion of the same in a publication.

Something to think about!

(7 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense