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.

fredmoore - 08:29pm Sep 21, 2003 EST (# 13830 of 13840)

Here's the the subtle essence of a true defence, missile or otherwise:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/09/22/1064082893102.html

Roo rescues unconscious farmer

By Chris Evans, Sydney Morning Herald, September 22, 2003

An emu farmer, 52, from Tanjil South, near Moe in Victoria, was flown to the Alfred hospital in Melbourne with head injuries after a kangaroo led his wife to find him unconscious under a damaged tree yesterday. Rural Ambulance Victoria paramedic Eddie Wright, a fishing companion of the man, was on the ambulance called to treat him at 9.15am. "This man possibly owes his life . . . to that animal," Mr Wright said. "It's blind in one eye and has hung around the property for the past 10 years, basically since it was a baby." Mr Wright said the man left home to cut up a storm-felled tree. He was hit on the head by a falling branch. "When the kangaroo has gone up to the house and knocked against their glass sliding door, not once but twice, they thought it was strange. But then the roo came back a third time . . . throwing its whole self against the back door," Mr Wright said. This time, Mr Wright said, the man's wife followed the kangaroo to the top of a crest from where she saw it keeping watch over her husband.

gisterme - 01:02am Sep 22, 2003 EST (# 13831 of 13840)

"..."SCREW KAEP, we're going for GATTICA"..."

Please don't overreact, Fred. I didn't say, think or intend to imply that. I just think we need to find a more palatable method, especially in the administrative approach, of accomplishing something like the vision you call KAEP.

I just saw "Gattica" for the first time a couple of months ago. I liked it. It was a thought provoking film with a very dark message. Let's hope we're not going for that.

gisterme - 01:05am Sep 22, 2003 EST (# 13832 of 13840)

The "roo" story is great, Fred. It goes to show that even animals can be grateful, caring and loyal. Of course anybody who's ever had a good dog knows that.

gisterme - 01:33am Sep 22, 2003 EST (# 13833 of 13840)

manju -

"...Or as Mazza and Gisterme says....develop the missile shield that is supposed to handle 200 incoming ICBMs,

If NK launched 200 ICBMs the currently planned missile shield probably wouldn't stop them all. However, the regrettable result would likely that the glorious NK leader and all his innocent citizens would have to live underground forever. What a life. They can't even feed themselves above ground.

"...hope that NKs don't have diesel subs capable of shooting off sea-based RCBMs,..."

Diesel subs don't worry me. They'd be gone before they ever had a chance to shoot.

"...an then go for the full scale nuclear war to wipe off that nation..."

If NK feels threatened it's because the threats it is projecting toward others are reflecting back on itself. If they don't want to feel threatened then they should stop threatening others. I doubt that anybody is impressed by the NK saber rattling in any way that is likely to feed NK's starving millions. I'm sure that NK has many better options if it would just take them.

"...But if they do have residual attack capability or the shield doesn't work, then I guess the chips will fall where they may.........."

If NK wants to attack the US, Japan, China, Russia or anybody else then the chips will fall where they may anyway. Most likely NK would find itself with no chips at all. The best the NK's glorious leader could hope for is to live for a while like a rat in a hole just like Saddam is doing now. And just as is the case with Saddam, it would only be for a while. The end would certainly be inglorious.

If NK managed to provoke a nuclear attack against itself by attacking somebody else with nukes then the world's problem of where to dump nuclear waste would likely be solved. After all, NK would be so contaminated that dumping other waste there wouldn't matter at all. All those underground bunkers would serve nicely. If we had a good place to dump nuclear waste then nuclear power might just be able to live up to the bright promise that it was thought to have early on.

manjumicha20 - 02:21am Sep 22, 2003 EST (# 13834 of 13840)

I agree that it is better to go out in flames (like mazza and gisterme will, I gather) than to live in the world of nucler winter after any type of nucler exchanges.

(6 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense