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.

talisman90 - 08:27pm Feb 10, 2002 EST (#11452 of 11476)

rshow55 2/10/02 8:20pm

So we agree that we're placing bets. We need to do it wisely. I'm not against taking rational chances. I'm against taking crazy chances.

I'm assuming that the "tests" of the new interceptors is legitimate. If they can actually hit incoming missiles, that is a good investment. I don't know if the "super lasers" will ever work, if that's what you're referring to as "crazy chances", I agree. The systems have to work. I remember during the Gulf War how the incoming SCUDS were hit by the "Patriots". Even though they weren't fool-proof, they provided a major psychological advantage.

rshow55 - 08:30pm Feb 10, 2002 EST (#11453 of 11476)

You need to change minds -- but sometimes you need to fight , too.

I think Nicholas Kristof has the basic ideas of bookeeping right in A merciful war http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/01/opinion/01KRIS.html

But you have to keep score. I continue to believe that the Bush administration's MD programs are crazy "sucker bets" .

The arguments for diplomacy are strong - - and it is useful more often than fighting -- and always needed before and after the fighting.

lchic - 08:31pm Feb 10, 2002 EST (#11454 of 11476)

Perhaps a lot of folks are potential terrorists .. it may be a phenomena that feeds on discontent.

Instating equity and removing the discontent is a starting point.

JOBS JOBS JOBS .. that give folks a means for decent survival -- and keep them busy, for starters.

There are/were a lack of jobs in these places :

Afghanistan
Dublin
Palestine
Cambodia

The industrial 'revolution' was about fears that machines would replace hand labour.

Alex (above) said the most wars were about access to OIL - oil powers, empowers - enables production.

There seems to be a need to facilitate economic progress .. and along with this appropriate mind-changes regarding how people review their own situation and what solutions they envisage.

The problem with old men who instigate wars, and terrorists, is that they have the know-how to get others to do the dirtywork they are not prepared to do themselves.

Some set generations against each other - as per Mao and the cultural revolution.

REAL progress, in my view, must relate to access to knowledge and a means to actively implement it, to be used for general advancement. And an informed military would support this stance.

rshow55 - 08:33pm Feb 10, 2002 EST (#11455 of 11476)

You're a lot smarter (and more attractive) than Louis Lane. How I wish I were superman ! -- I'd take one hop - - and fly to you.

Sorry I'm not. I'm getting tired.

lchic - 08:33pm Feb 10, 2002 EST (#11456 of 11476)

Looking out - i have the SUN this side ... perhaps you guys have the MOON .. why not surrender to the elements and call it a day?

gisterme - 08:36pm Feb 10, 2002 EST (#11457 of 11476)

rshow55 2/10/02 7:05pm

"In gisterme 2/10/02 6:07pm , gisterme seems to find it "strange" that a hand held calculator can calculate sines and cosines well - - - or perhaps finds it "strange" that sines and cosines are the functions to look at for laser accuracy."

I didn't say any of those things, Robert. You did! Please don't speak for me. When you do it does make me sound ignorant. What I said was:

"Good thing your little handheld calculator isn't used to determine the optical performance of lasers, Robert."

I wish you wouldn't make stuff up like that then attribuite it to me. It makes you look corrupt. The record shows that, I said absolutely nothing about trigonometric functions or their application for this purpose. It also shows your dishonesty, Robert.

The reason I said it's a good thing that your little handheld calcultator is not being used to calculate the optical quality of lasers (or ANY precision optical instrument) is because your little calculator only has ten digits or so of resolution. Not nearly powerful enough for the precision and small-angle calculations required. That's why powerful computers with far better numerical resolutions would be used for those purposes.

"...The angular accuracy lasing needs is much less than the level of angular accuracy needed so that optical imperfections in the laser can be ignored for the purposes of ABL.

Huh? That statement hardly makes contextual sense with itself, Robert. Are you saying that just because it's a laser, it's not good enough. Now there's a very objective statement! And who's ignoring anything?

But okay, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Where's the "open literature" that you base that little nugget of wisdom on? I notice you didn't post a reference...

If you can't show why your claim is true from that "open literature" you like to boast about so much, Robert, I call Bull Sh!t.

Just pretend I'm an umpire...asking a perfectly resonable question...

:-)

lchic - 08:37pm Feb 10, 2002 EST (#11458 of 11476)

Note to mAzzA : in the period when Showalter was off the board, the board had 'monikers' .. but only two main authors - You and GI. Just in the interest of truth - which you're sometimes a tad short on :)

lchic - 08:39pm Feb 10, 2002 EST (#11459 of 11476)

GI: Showalter's calculator is powered by Kryptonite - which is robust, dynamic and 'always right'!

(17 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense