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.

mazza9 - 01:38pm Feb 10, 2002 EST (#11413 of 11426)
Louis Mazza

RShow55:

The first adaptive optics were used by a 13th century monk whose vision had deteriorated to the point where he could no longer illuminate the texts that he was copying. Called reading glasses, they've a long and very well understood technology base. Today, I wear little pieces of water soluble plastic in my eyes and once again my optics are adapted to the world around me. I can see!

Amateur astronomers are now applying these adaptive optics' techniques to their telescopes and yet you deny the existence of and ability to manipulate light waves. Very curious!

"I think that the Bush administration may be selling some politicians, and the American people, short." Unlike the Clinton Administration which was the "most ethical in history". How many men were arrested and prosecuted for sodomy in the Washington DC area while Clinton was engaged in similar practices in "my" office. Why was it a personal behavior on his part and a crime by the common ordinary man-in-the-street? Be careful when you speak of "All the same, politicians are capable of honor". That statement might be used as an example of an oxymoron!

Unlike you, I am not perfect. I fit the bill of what the founding fathers believed was the true nature of man. Imperfect, lots of warts, but given the opportunity capable of many things if given the freedom. My 4th grade english teacher explained the difference between Freedom and License. Do I need to elaborate?

LouMazza

rshow55 - 01:57pm Feb 10, 2002 EST (#11414 of 11426)

No, Mazza, I'm not perfect -- for instance, I hadn't given enough attention to MD1371 gisterme 2/8/02 7:05pm - - and I'm having another look.

One question I'm not clear on is "what is being adjusted?" . . . Is the COIL laser assembly itself adjusted? Or just the mirrors reflecting and guiding the light from the COIL laser (in itself a very hard thing to do - impossible to do, it looks like to me, with the exhaust plume reference available -- even if the airplane wasn't shaking, and the compensation for that necessarily imperfect.)

It is in the national interest to have defense systems that work. Money supplies aren't infinite. And logic does matter. It is responsible conduct, not "license" to point that out.

I'm looking again at MD11371 -- which seems misguided, if not intentionally deceptive -- but then, I'm imperfect, and may have misjudged gisterme here.

gisterme - 03:39pm Feb 10, 2002 EST (#11415 of 11426)

rshow55 2/10/02 9:43am

"...That's a question of fact, is it not? A question of fact that applies to a particular system, ABL, in the tactical contexts actually involved?...:

If you say so, mate. :-) ...Did I do that right, lchic?

"...Suppose, by chance, that people didn't trust my objectivity completely,..."

Hard to see how they could...

"...or yours either. Wouldn't it still be possible to check? It would, and the checking wouldn't be difficult, either. The checking wouldn't be expensive, and would be more than justified by the enormous stakes..."

Go ahead and check, Robert. I'm not stopping you. In fact, I've put about as much checkable stuff in front of you as I've had time to find; but you apparently haven't bothered to check even that. The entire case that I've made for the feasibilty of MD systems has been based entirely on checking I've done. You have done nothing but nay-say, apparenly based on checking your own emotions rather than checking facts.

"...We've been talking about the need for umpires, for referees, for a long time..."

You've been talking about umpires for some time Robert. I haven't noticed anybody else talking about them except a couple of times recently when you were asked by me just what they'd do. The thing you haven't quite gotten around to showing is just what an umpire would do in a subjective environment where there seem to be no rules. Your own writings show that you have little regard for the truththfulness of your discourse. Now if the most basic rule of "sticking to the truth" is not honored, then what possible good could an umpire do. I can see it now...

Umpire: "Your'e out!"

Showalter: "Am not!"

Umpire: "Your'e out!"

Showalter: "That's impossible! Can't be done.!"

Umpire: "The rule book says if you swing and miss three times, you're out!"

Showalter: "Could that rule book be a product of the Carlysle foundation? Therefore, I can't be out! We've been talking for some time now about umpires for the umpires..."

Yes sir, those umpires would make a big difference. 8~]

(11 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense