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 - 08:32pm Mar 20, 2002 EST (#729 of 732)

The technical questions set out in bold below may seem dry - and to many people, such as Professor Postol, they seem fully answered already. But the arguments involved with them haven't been fully set out by the standards expected in a court of law - - or the standards that are now possible on the internet, with some organization and umpring.

The arguments involved haven't been contested , with technical questions that required decision decided by very widely respected judges, for reasons that could themselves be judged.

The issues haven't been illustrated, numerically and pictorially, to the standards expected in a court of law - with arguments that would work for real juries.

But these questions could be answered to these high standards, and answered beyond any reasonable doubt.

With the whole world (and reponsible politicians) watching.

QUESTIONS: :

" How technically challenging are the missile defense programs that have been set out in public (laser and midcourse interception ) in terms of what is known, and what has been achieved, in the open engineering and scientific literature? Are the objectives for these specific kinds of systems compatible with the laws of physics? To work, these systems have to do specific things, and do these things together. Are the technical objectives these systems have to meet reasonable in terms of known laws of physics, and relevant experience in engineering?

" If function of these systems requires breakthroughs, compared to previous open literature theory or experience --- what are these breakthroughs? How do the results needed compare quantitatively to results that have been achieved in the open literature by engineers, applied physicists, or other people who measure carefully? If breakthroughs are required, how do they compare to test results that have been made available to date?

These missile defense programs need to be evaluated in a reasonable tactical context, subject to the countermeasures that can reasonably be expected and specified.

There would have to be "fights" about these questions -- contractors, and the military, would have to be forced to contest these issues. - Or accept anwers on a clear nolo contenre basis. If world leaders wanted to bring this force to bear -- one way or another -- it could be done -- and pretty gracefully.

These "dry technical answers" would make a practical difference on larger questions, of concern to all citizens of the world.

The answers would be clear, and would exist in clear logical contexts. Contexts that could be set out in "decision trees" such as the decision making/tree, expert systems set out it MD634 lchic 3/18/02 11:51am

When the technical answers are clear -- many clear conclusions will follow about the rationality and good faith of military-industrial patterns in which the whole world has an interest.

Sometimes, to sort out a mess, you have to get SOME key relations clarified. It would be possible to clarify these relations. That done -- conditions would be in place for "breakthrough negotiations" that are deeply in the interest of the United States of America, and the rest of the world as well.

Many details about this have already been set out at length on this thread - and discussed with gisterme , who, at the time, gave every indication of having discussed these issues with her (his) colleagues.

rshow55 - 08:37pm Mar 20, 2002 EST (#730 of 732)

Would leaders want answers like this? Enough, as a practical matter, to ask for them, in the ways effective action would actually take?

I'm getting some reasons to hope that it may be possible.

People are people, and sometimes, to get a decision -- there has to be a fight. A contest. We could have one. With umpires very widely respected for the job at hand. It would take a little setting up, but not too much.

What do you think, gisterme ?

mazza9 - 10:23pm Mar 20, 2002 EST (#731 of 732)
Louis Mazza

Missile Defense Works! You can deny the existence of this fact but it won't go away no matter how much you invoke Eisenhower, Enron, or the Battle of the Little Big Horn.

You muddy the water with this pseudo intellectual claptrap and fail to answer questions that might jeopardize your position. You speak of force when logical persuasion is what is called for and I suspect your ad hominem attacks will intensify re this post...but hey isn't that what's this is all about. Your right and the rest of the world is just stupid!

Lou Mazza

rshow55 - 10:36pm Mar 20, 2002 EST (#732 of 732)

What questions have I failed to answer? As I recall, I've been pretty open with you, about getting down to basics. For example, several times, I've suggested that you just download the Coyle Report, and we could discuss failings of the midcourse system (that haven't been changed since the Coyle Report - in detail MD353 rshow55 3/10/02 10:16pm - - - you're distracting from something that, more and more, looks like a criminal conspiracy that makes Enron smell good.

Now, Mazza, I've been sparring with you long enough to know that you'll distract any way you can. But the suggestion (which would, after all, require some force to constrain the behavior in which you specialize) would work very well.

. . . tonight, I'm going to get some rest.

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense