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?

artemis130 - 09:51pm Jun 9, 2001 EST (#4678 of 4695)
caveat venditor

I have a thought on this NMD thing.

We have lots of money. Let's throw as much spaghetti against the wall as physics allows and see what sticks.

rshowalter - 10:05pm Jun 9, 2001 EST (#4679 of 4695)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

If we took our "lots of money" and spent it sensibly, we might do some good. Rather than making a lot of things worse.

smartalix - 12:51am Jun 10, 2001 EST (#4680 of 4695)
Anyone who denies you information considers themselves your master

dirac,

You haven't answered anything.

You don't even recognizde the distinction between a boost-phase intercept and an incoming warhead intercept.

Your mumbling about "conservation of energy" is incomprehensible.

I'm done with you.

Let's just agree to disagree based upon the lack of a recognizable frame of reference. On second thought, we don't have to agree. You have a very weak grasp of the concepts you are discussing.

smartalix - 12:55am Jun 10, 2001 EST (#4681 of 4695)
Anyone who denies you information considers themselves your master

If there are others who are interested, I have a very good essay examining both sides of the ABM debate that was sent to me posted on my site, Smartalix.com

dirac_10 - 01:42am Jun 10, 2001 EST (#4682 of 4695)

smartalix - 12:51am Jun 10, 2001 EST (#4680 of 4681)

You haven't answered anything.

Ah, the logic of it, the blindingly clear analysis, what can I say?

You don't even recognizde the distinction between a boost-phase intercept and an incoming warhead intercept.

You never mentioned it. Only talked about warheads. At least I was aware of it. Perhaps, now you are too.

Your mumbling about "conservation of energy" is incomprehensible.

I'll bet it is. No explaination is necessary. We understand.

I'm done with you.

With such stunning analysis as above, It's clear why.

Let's just agree to disagree based upon the lack of a recognizable frame of reference.

Nah, no deal.

On second thought, we don't have to agree.

Good thing I didn't go for it.

You have a very weak grasp of the concepts you are discussing.

And your logic and analysis about it, so cleverly explained above, speaks for itself.

rshowalter - 11:47am Jun 10, 2001 EST (#4683 of 4695)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

I feel that A New Deal for a New Senate by TOM DASCHLE http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/10/opinion/10DASC.html Week In Review is worth setting out here in its entirety here. It is right on point for this thread.

Much else in today's TIMES is wonderful, too, and some is very promising.

But it is clear that the potential for bad, as well as good, is great here -- and the need for reframings -- for what Howard Baker called "redemption" in A New Deal for a New Senate by TOM DASCHLE http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/10/opinion/10DASC.html is going to be essential if good results, rather than bad ones, are going to occur.

In Missile Defense, and much else, both sides have "pieces" of the truth - things to say that are right and useful -- but neither side has all of the truth, and accomodations that are proportionate and workable have to be found.

There is a need to take what is realistic and workable, from both positions, and make an accomodation that fits actual circumstances more beautifully than either.

If we can check facts that matter this should be possible. But getting facts straight, a matter much discussed on this thread, is going to be an essential challenge -- and a challenge that I believe must be met much better than it is today, if anything safe or fully satisfactory on missile defense is to be achieved.

(12 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense