New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

Russian military leaders have expressed concern about US plans for a national missile defense system. Will defense technology be limited by possibilities for a strategic imbalance? Is this just SDI all over again?

dirac_10 - 04:11pm Jun 8, 2001 EST (#4625 of 4636)

alty53 - 03:35pm Jun 8, 2001 EST (#4623 of 4624)

If dirac 10 had any sense of physics

Oh, I suspect we can expect you to drop the subject of physics like a hot potato.

he/she would quickly recognize that you can not shoot a missle down traveling at 6.9 miles per second or more than 36,000 feet per second (take your choice).

6.9? Not 7, not 6.8 but 6.9? Seems a little fast, but in the ballpark for an ICBM warhead.

What the heck is the problem? What physics problem stops us? Guess you forgot to mention it, huh?

Ballpark, it's 10 times faster than a jet. Big deal.

Speed of light limitations aren't an issue.

And we have been able to predict the path of the ICBM since Kepler. Newton explained why.

The "B" in ICBM stands for sitting duck.

The existing lasers shoot dozens of shots/second. Speed of light.

Plus the well well beaten path of antimissle/jet missles.

Scraping the ABM Treaty and the Missiles in Space Treaty of 1967 is really designed to place missile loaded platforms in space orbiting at about 400 miles above your head.

Actually no. It is designed to save the human race from extinction. At least the people of the United States.

The Europeans/Russians and the Japanese/Chinese will most certainly build their own missile platforms targeting US cities in response to the US threat to their cities.

This may come as a shock to you, but Russia and Communist China have lots of missles aimed at us right now. Enough to totally obliterate us. And nothing to stop it. Duh.

And the Japanese targeting us? I rather doubt it. The Communist Chinese ain't exactly thrilled at them either. Or anyone else in Asia.

Soon we all get to go to bed at night with nuclear tipped missiles orbiting overhead just two minutes away from vaporizing you and your family.

2 minutes after the launch of an ICBM, getting vaporized is a certainty as we stand. You just live a few minutes more. There won't be a warning.

At least with the present system we have a half hour before the missiles arrive......a half hour to prevent World War III.

With the certainty of destruction of the target, regardless. You can't call them back.

And your "rocket in orbit" ain't gonna accelerate the warhead to your "6.9" mps speed or make it to the ground in 2 minutes any time soon.

sonicboom28 - 05:01pm Jun 8, 2001 EST (#4626 of 4636)

I am not suprisied that "DR. STRANGERUM" AND HIS PENTAGON TEAM are rushing ahead to deploy an unproven technology with our tax dollars. My question is: Does he seek to regenerate the Cold War, or fall on his can and get this nation into a shooting war.

Sec Def Rumsfeld has simply been out of the national security game for too long to notice that the world has changed in a profound way since he last served in government. And, Commander in Chief Cheney is cheering him along.

If you voted for "Junior", its is on your back for another 3.5 years. Why is it that the republican party loves fools as their leaders?

rshowalter - 05:16pm Jun 8, 2001 EST (#4627 of 4636)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

This thread has been, as much of my work has been, an attempt to get closure and truth in discourse -- and a demonstration of the point that -- many times checking must be morally forcing if good things are to be achieved, or bad things avoided. I've been involved with this issue, on these New York Times forum threads, for a long time.

One individual, again and again - has demonstrated how to avoid closure -- how to distract, and degrade discourse - and has given, in my view, real clarity and meaning to the word bad faith. After more than 55 interactions with dirac ... on this thread, I made some things explicit -- things that people around the NYT have reason to know -- in
MD1742 rshowalter 3/29/01 8:09pm . . . MD2133 rshowalter 4/10/01 10:29am
MD2134 rshowalter 4/10/01 10:32am . . . MD2135 rshowalter 4/10/01 10:39am
MD2136 rshowalter 4/10/01 10:54am
and many links referring to these.

amacd - 05:17pm Jun 8, 2001 EST (#4628 of 4636)
For what the global corporate elite are doing to average people everywhere, the New York Times serves the same function as K-Y Jelly

Now that even "Chance the President" has accepted the Nation Academy of Science report that global warming is real and 'serious science', it looks like the only gainful employment opportunities for 'junk scientists' is with the defense contractors on NMD.

rshowalter - 05:21pm Jun 8, 2001 EST (#4629 of 4636)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

If Senator Levin and his colleagues do a competent job, "junk scientists" may actually have to pull up their socks, and find honest employment. And the defense contractors may have to do some honest bookeeping - and accounting of who, and how, they take orders, and for what purpose.

rshowalter - 05:27pm Jun 8, 2001 EST (#4630 of 4636)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

MD4542 rshowalter 6/7/01 9:55am ... MD4543 rshowalter 6/7/01 10:05am

(6 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense