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.

wrcooper - 11:36pm Oct 14, 2003 EST (# 15036 of 15067)

In re: http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.UsrvbnVpODi.2598769@.f28e622/16732

bluestar23

Cooper:

Call me Will. It's friendlier. What shall I call you? Ole Blue? :)

There are no real concerns in Russian leadership...

I personally have never said there was. Russia is not a threat, currently.

Bush's system may indeed protect against smaller numbers of missiles, a more likely scenario....

It may indeed not protect us. In fact, it won't protect us--not as presently envisioned. It doesn't work. Period. That's not my opinion. That's a fact. Not only has it failed in tests which have been jiggered to make it easier for the interceptor to hit its target, the principla radar in Alaska that will supposedly distinguish actual warheads from decoys isn't in place, hasn't been tested, and couldn't ever be tested against an actual enemy target. Not to mention, as we've been discussing of late, an enemy capable of building an ICBM would certainly be capable of building much less sophisticated countermeasures that would foil our interceptors.

lchic - 11:39pm Oct 14, 2003 EST (# 15037 of 15067)
TRUTH outs ultimately : TRUTH has to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong foundation

Why is 2010 seen as a significant ENERGY DATE?

------------------------------

UK '' Countryside campaigners warn the government that relaxation of planning guidelines for onshore wind farms could "devastate" the landscape

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,3604,1063034,00.html

"Truly sustainable solutions should mean the public don't have to choose between protecting the landscape they cherish and saving the planet on which they depend," the Campaign to Protect Rural England argues.

With turbines reaching heights greater than the clock tower of Big Ben, their increasing number "threatens to devastate the beauty, tranquillity and diversity of the English countryside ... We cannot build our way out of climate change with wind turbines," she argues. ''

Uncertainty re price of ENERGY after 2010 made it difficult to find investors.

lchic - 11:42pm Oct 14, 2003 EST (# 15038 of 15067)
TRUTH outs ultimately : TRUTH has to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong foundation

Cooper would know ... if only he didn't have lchic on ignore ... maybe a little telepathy would help ...

gisterme - 11:52pm Oct 14, 2003 EST (# 15039 of 15067)

cantabb -

"...No quite. Try dismemberment !..."

Okay "plink, plink, plink, plink...plink, plink"...the sound of a pesky peckerwood trying to dismember the steel fence post. How's that? :-)

"...(Fred ): "...Mind you I have not had very much success with Rshow either but at least I can claim that my INTENT is positive, scientifically and philosophically contributary to MD and maybe even a little enertaining..."

gisterme: A worthy cause and a good assesment.

Cantabb: Wow. One “regular” scratching another “regular’s” back !

Hmmm. Well I suppose that "backscratching" means different things to different folks. Still, all I did was acknowledge and agree with what Fred said. What's the matter with that? Is that backscratching to you? If you think that, well, maybe it's because you don't have much experience with folks agreeing with you. Based on what you've posted on this thread, I can see how that could happen.

Oh, by the way, next time your back itches...don't scratch it.

"...That’s WHAT I noticed on the Forum: ‘wallowing in’ the same ole slop !..."

Well, that pretty much says it all, cantabb. You've made my earlier point about the pleasure you to take in "wallowing" along with the rest of us. I think I'll start calling you "blackie". It might make the kettle feel better. :-)

gisterme - 11:53pm Oct 14, 2003 EST (# 15040 of 15067)

Correction! That was supposed to be "woodpecker"!

gisterme - 12:04am Oct 15, 2003 EST (# 15041 of 15067)

jorian -

"...In particular, I think it behooves he who makes claims of progress or effective work (that would be YOU, rshow55), to hold those claims up to the standard of a pre-existing statement of purpose. In the absence of any standard, claims of progress or effectiveness are simple ego-stroking exercises...."

Well said!

(26 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense