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.

jorian319 - 11:49am Oct 8, 2003 EST (# 14643 of 14663)
"Statements on frequently important subjects are interesting." -rshow55

Connecting the Dots....

Dots were originally sold as "Mason Dots". Coincidence? Or a conspiracy of the Free Masons?

Dots are sold by the Case. Rshow sez he worked for Casey. Coincidence??

The number to call with questions about Dots is 1-866-WAX-LIPS Wax Lips??? Are you kidding? Like this is NOT some kind of security code for "secret". Right.

Dots are sold in 2.25 ounce boxes. I'm not sure why this sounds sinister, but it does. Probably something to do with Tuna Quarter.

You too can connect with Dots at http://oldtimecandy.com/dots.htm

Be sure you view that page over a secure connection, though. Wouldn't want anything to happen to you.

klsanford0 - 11:51am Oct 8, 2003 EST (# 14644 of 14663)

FM:

"but don't expect anything but contempt from people who are interested in an amusing and entertaining discussion that leads gently to a credible National Defence solution rather than just a missile defence strategy."

that's only your personal construct, FM, this business about demanding a "National Defence" solution...you're saying we must all carefully follow you as you lead us "gently" ...how silly of you to say, we need do nothing of the kind...this Forum is about MD, not your ideas about some mythical "National Defence Solution" ....Huh...?

cantabb - 11:51am Oct 8, 2003 EST (# 14645 of 14663)

rshow55 - 10:42am Oct 8, 2003 EST (# 14630 of 14638)

Another confused post !

If patterns fit a great many tests at once - they may be misunderstandings. But if one keeps checking - both in terms of internal logic and checkable data - and the patterns persist - what are the odds of that?

Inane generalities !

People may be muddled - and it takes us a while - but we can get useful results - and break "codes" and "mysteries".

Speak for yourself, rshow55 !

The New York Times as an institution is now, as usual, presenting arguments on every side of the issues involved.

But you have NOT yet presented your side of the issues involved -- UNLESS your side was : Eisenhower-Casey-CIA “connection,” obsessive interest in poster identities, re-hash of re-hashed posts and endless self links on irrelevant things [your “loop test”], etc.

You STILL have NOT said what you think you have been working so hard on for 2-plus years, with the world asset, lchic, and support from the school-yard Fredmoore !

Does this have to do with missile defense? YOU BET !

In what way ? You’ve been dodging the questions on your activities and claims here. You have never showed your side of the issues yet, have you ?

wrcooper - 12:06pm Oct 8, 2003 EST (# 14646 of 14663)

Those who wish to read the government's position on NMD may wish to peruse

http://www.acq.osd.mil/bmdo/bmdolink/html/mission.html

fredmoore - 12:06pm Oct 8, 2003 EST (# 14647 of 14663)

klsanford0 - 11:51am Oct 8, 2003 EST (# 14644 of 14645)

I never said My lead had to be followed. I will be pushing it that's for sure but there are numerous others around here. If you don't want an easy paced entertaining and amusing experience on this forum that's your business.

As for National Defence, only a fool would not consider all the alternatives and options at this most dangerous juncture in history. Unless you really think Cantabb is a useful addition to this forum you probably have an open mind .. that is all I expect of anyone here.

wrcooper - 12:10pm Oct 8, 2003 EST (# 14648 of 14663)

The current emphasis on boost phase interception is to avoid the insuperable problem of defeating decoys, right?

But wouldn't it be easy to defeat boost phase interception by launching a sufficiently large number of missiles simultaneously? Or using various kinds of "decoys"?

Using boost phase really doesn't remove the advantage of the attacker, it would seem.

Thoughts?

(15 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense