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.

rshow55 - 03:34pm Mar 5, 2002 EST (#224 of 235)

MD198 rshow55 3/4/02 9:46am ... MD199 lchic 3/4/02 12:59pm
MD200 rshow55 3/4/02 2:17pm

The more one looks at the technical situation on "missile defense" -- the clearer it is that it is nothing but a waste, tactically. Countermeasures certain to defeat it, or reduce its chances of a hit to a negligible value, may cost as little as a millionth of the cost of the system itself.

Though, as Stephen Weinberg points out in Can Missile Defense Work? http://www.nybooks.com/articles/15132 The New York Review of Books February 14, 2002 .. the system might work as a stunt. . The piece, which does not treat countermeasures very extensively, and therefore draws relatively "optimistic" conclusions about feasility nevertheless ends

" . . In seeking to deploy a national missile defense aimed at an implausible threat, a defense that would have dubious effectiveness against even that threat, and that on balance would harm our security more than it helps it, the Bush administration seems to be pursuing a pure rather than applied missile defense— a missile defense that is undertaken for its own sake, rather than for any application it may have in defending our country." (emphasis added.)

We have fictions here - - linked to circumstances that are dangerous, and not in the interest of the United States considered as a nation.

seantga - 06:39pm Mar 5, 2002 EST (#225 of 235)

Hi there. I'm Sean, the host for this forum. I usually take a hands-off approach, but I'd like to remind posters that multiple posting is not always the best way to get your point across.

Let's try to tone down the volume and let other people get their thoughts in.

Thanks.

manjumicha2001 - 12:02am Mar 6, 2002 EST (#226 of 235)

Sean

Please leave rshow alone. Notwithstanding our lack of responses, we do read his postins with interest from time to time. They are in most cases pretty important contributions to your forum, i think.

Rshow:

You are right that "fiction" often serves as the basis for national "vision" of the prior, current and future regimes (whether they are despotic or not). AT the same time, however, the fictional ideology of a regime is often sustained and reinforced by the harsh and unavoidable realities of the nation or people (which is host to any particular regime and its "fictional" ideologies). They often do contront very real and cruel threat to their existence. For example, NK's juche ideology might be a monstrous fiction but it was born out of, and nurtured by, 50 year-long US-led economic, political and military embargo of that nation coupled with overt nuclear threats to its existence. Even China and Soviets had to either change the nature of their regimes (in case of China) or crumble (in case of Soviet) under the weight of cold war won by US. NK chose an opposite path, which was summed up by its representative in Tokyo as follows: "We chose to be hungry wolves in the wild than tamed house dogs". I do not believe this sentiment is a "fiction" to them.

Another example might be the myth of "Zionism" for jewish diaspora. I suspect that considering the horrors of pograms throughout centries, a jewish person's (even if he/she was born and raised and spent entire life in US and never visited Israel in his while entire life) choice to "return" can't be said to be based on a 'mythical" hope for Zion even by the most ardent critique of Zionism as a viable national vision....

lchic - 12:56am Mar 6, 2002 EST (#227 of 235)

ManJ - on North Korea - said:

NK's juche ideology might be a monstrous fiction but it was born out of, and nurtured by, 50 year-long US-led economic, political and military embargo of that nation coupled with overt nuclear threats to its existence.

Is there general awareness of this Fifty Year Policy .. was it said and restated (?), or, are such policies hidden in the shadows out of the light where the general public have neither awareness nor opportunity to comment or give input.

lchic - 01:02am Mar 6, 2002 EST (#228 of 235)

Sean people have every opportunity to 'get their thoughts in' they just post .. NYT threads are world threads - people post in their time zones (perhaps multiply) - often 'others' are not available at that specific time.

_{The board is a renewed board of that which ran from Sept2000 to last week - with 11,000 postings.
It's archived (NYTsomewhere) - go check
Showalter is 'the appointed one' to re-introduce valuable key points.}

Regarding Missile Defence the big question -

Why are 'Useless dangerous antique nuclear weapons' not taken down ...

HOW TO GET THEM DOWN ?!!

lchic - 01:15am Mar 6, 2002 EST (#229 of 235)

If only these millionaires devoted their 'spiritual time' to cleaning up the missile mess! http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/asia-pacific/newsid_1856000/1856302.stm

"People get a sense of satisfaction and sense of pride from contributing to society," she said. "People become spiritually wealthy because when you help others you actually help yourself."

lchic - 02:40am Mar 6, 2002 EST (#230 of 235)

Chick .. with steel underbelly? http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/02/international/europe/02POUL.html

lchic - 02:44am Mar 6, 2002 EST (#231 of 235)

http://www.moscowtimes.ru/stories/2002/03/06/001.html

(4 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense