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.

gisterme - 12:29am Feb 5, 2002 EST (#11253 of 11295)

rshow55 2/3/02 2:36pm

"...It would take me a long while, just to find all the examples of deception on your part, and gisterme's part, on this thread..."

It would take you forever, Robert because there aren't any! :-)

But, go ahead, Robert...find just one! Almost every post you make is deceptive, laid out with an expectation of ignorance on the part of most readers. But such ignorance is your assumption, not the reality. That's why most posters don't stick around for much of your shouting. They realize you're not saying anything much so they leave. That's too bad.

gisterme - 12:52am Feb 5, 2002 EST (#11254 of 11295)

mazza9 2/5/02 12:20am

"...However,my 11251 was to the point and used less syllables..."

Sure did, Lou. :-P

gisterme - 01:51am Feb 5, 2002 EST (#11255 of 11295)

rshow55 2/4/02 8:35pm

"The reflectors are too small to be seen from Earth, so even when the beam is precisely aligned in the telescope, actually hitting a lunar retroreflector array is technically challenging. At the Moon's surface the beam is roughly four miles wide. Scientists liken the task of aiming the beam to using a rifle to hit a moving dime two miles away.

Hee hee, ho HO HAAAA.

You're stepping in the same cow-pie for the third time, Robert! Unbelievable! As I've said before, this thread is like the treadmill background in a 1930's cowboy movie. :-) Here's how I responded to the same BS way far back the first ime. Following posts are also germain to the current Showalter line of balony.

gisterme 7/3/01 6:24pm

gisterme 7/3/01 6:52pm

Now that the search engine is back, here's some other early calculation about requirements for laser performance compared to known existing technology...from your first visit to the pie...

gisterme 7/6/01 7:13pm

The point you "forget" to mention that was also pointed out is that the published radial resolution of the Hubble Space Telescope is sufficient to perform in the way you say ol' gisterme was so wrong about. Of course you assertion of "wrongness" was about something I wasn't even talking about. Target angle of incidence (that I was talking about) and beam divergence that you said I was talking about are not the same thing at all. Your technique of comparing apples to oranges and then drawing a conclusion of "impossible" is no less ludicrous now than it was then. When you made those statements before, Robert I just thought you were revealing your ignorance. But considering your subsequent writings, I must now suppose that you were just being dishonest. What other conclusion could I draw? Head in the sand? That would be better, I guess.

Here's how I responded on your second visit to the cow-pie.

gisterme 9/28/01 8:37pm

You should really be more careful about where you step, Robert. Folks will eventually begin to think you either can't discern or don't care about the aroma of your presence.

I hope that the third time's the charm. I'm worried about you, Robert. You're making yourself look corrupt.

lchic - 03:43am Feb 5, 2002 EST (#11256 of 11295)

JFK was smarter than you! mazza9 2/5/02 12:05am

So 'getting out' is smarter politics and strategy than getting in, and getting in deeper and deeper -- which costs a lot, seems to remove pensions and welfare from ordinary folk ... fills prisons with criminals in the Homeland .. and creates outcasts.

lchic - 06:08am Feb 5, 2002 EST (#11257 of 11295)

Rumsfeld made the JimLehrerNewsHour - Europe's reshaped strategy to modern era.

rshow55 - 06:22am Feb 5, 2002 EST (#11258 of 11295)

Glad to see some progress on this board. There's a sort of "Gresham's law" in organizations -- Gresham's law says "bad money drives out good." --- bad behavior, and bad judgement, can drive out good, as well. And then, the familiar defense is "trust me." . . . "Don't ask questions."

Enron , is a clear example, and getting clearer -- where a company, that may have started in approximate good faith, to "keep going" -- told lie after lie after lie, to the point that the corruption swamped everything, though somehow, human beings having he self deceptive capabilities they do - - people managed, somehow, at some levels, "not to know."

The missile defense programs are similar. And this board, just because there is enough dialog that facts, if you keep score, do tend to converge, is showing how close to the Enron case MD is.

lchic - 06:27am Feb 5, 2002 EST (#11259 of 11295)

Hot air busting bubbles and hard to pin down truths.

(36 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense