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.

cantabb - 11:54pm Sep 24, 2003 EST (# 13932 of 13958)

fredmoore - 09:27pm Sep 24, 2003 EST (# 13929 of 13931)

'What's fair' and 'what's cheating' don't seem to cover the realities. Perhaps, in ways that transmute to something tangible and something that really matters to juries and to those concerned with connecting dots in order to achieve symmetry outside of the kitchen sink,

Just as coherent as your friend !

the following story (retold) reaches the heart of the matter:

There was an ant in the jungle who fancied an elephant. So one day he climbed all the way up her back legs to take out his satisfaction on her. A Monkey in a nearby tree saw this and was disgusted, incensed and secretly very jealous. So the Monkey picked up a coconut and threw it at the ant. However, his aim was poor and he hit the elephant on the head and the elephant let out a sharp cry. The ant hearing this yelled out "take it baby, take it!!"

Reminds me of rshow: How many times is THIS lame thing going to be posted here? And, forget, How does it fit in ?

Will the Monkey hit the ant or will he run out of coconuts ... or will the whole darned forest burn to the ground in a firestorm? Will the ant pick up a coconut and hit the monkey? These and all your other questions will be answered in coming episodes:

Roger Ramjet, He's our man Hero of the Nation For his adventures just be sure To stay tuned to this station.

So nice at least one dedicated "regular" from DownUnder stays tuned? What else can we expect of him: He's NOT going to leave the school yard anytime soon.

cantabb - 11:59pm Sep 24, 2003 EST (# 13933 of 13958)

commondata - 10:02pm Sep 24, 2003 EST (# 13930 of 13931)

I've just looked in for a brief moment and it's good to you're still at it Rshow. Cantabb, Jorian, you really are the most boring people ... block Rshow if you don't want to read him or go somewhere else. Yawn.

That's why perhaps you did NOT notice that, ever since my FIRST post here a week ago, I've just just been responding to the posts addressed to me by the "regulars."

Asking rshow to focus and not ramble on and one makes me "most boring" ?

You must like rambling, self-referencing cycles on NOTHING of any substance, instead ! Good to know !

patthnyc - 12:22am Sep 25, 2003 EST (# 13934 of 13958)
". . . how fragile we are . . ." -- Sting

30,000 nuclear warheads

http://www.thenation.com/outrage/index.mhtml?bid=6

We've got 11,000 nuclear weapons -- some as battlefield "tactical" nukes, some in storage, and about 7,000 mounted on fueled, hair-trigger-to-launch ICBMs. The Russians have about 19,500 nuclear weapons -- about 5,500 of them on fueled, hair-trigger-alert missiles. From the moment the early-warning systems cry danger (real or cyber-glitch), the US government allows itself 22 minutes before launch keys are turned in retaliation; the Russian government allows itself six minutes.

And the Bush Republican response?

1. We need more nukes. For terrorists.

2. North Korea is evil and can't have a nuclear weapon. Not one. Because someday soon we'll probably attack them. Unless they have a nuclear weapon.

3. The 30,000-strong Cold War arsenal of nukes will not, in any meaningful way, be on the agenda of the George Bush-Vladimir Putin summit this weekend. Not important enough, what with Iraq and oil and all.

And so goes yet-another missed opportunity for real security.