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 - 01:30pm Oct 16, 2003 EST (# 15177 of 15180)
Can we do a better job of finding truth? YES. Click "rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have done and worked for on this thread.

Cantabb , re http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.fJCYb287Ouu.0@.f28e622/16888 , the Sulzberger point is interesting. Though I wonder how much authority you have to raise it.

Once, a long while ago - I called in to the NYT - got a secretary - and she was kind enough to give me Sulzberger's email adress.

I thought a while about sending to it - and decided, then, that I couldn't. For reasons that made sense then - but don't apply now.

That was a long time ago - and I didn't hang onto the address.

Now, though I'd be afraid - Sulzberger has a lot of rank - I'd be honored to contact him. Or someone with a name who represented him - knowing how valuable Sulzberger's time is.

But the grammer of the situation would be a good deal easier if someone at the NYT, with a name, would call me. Or call someone (for instance, at the UW ) who knew me, and who'd call me.

I think things could work out in ways that the average reader of The New York Times would find comfortable - and consistent with the national interest.

I would be honored to have things work out in a way that gave the NYT satisfaction - if they were compatible with my reasonable function.

rshow55 - 02:09pm Oct 16, 2003 EST (# 15178 of 15180)
Can we do a better job of finding truth? YES. Click "rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have done and worked for on this thread.

If the average reader of The New York Times - in possession of the facts - would conclude that I should go to jail - - - well, I'd be willing to risk that.

But there would need to be a situation with some chance of closure - under conditions where the standard assumption is that everybody's afraid enough, angry enough - so that things are unstable.

I know I'm afraid. For reasons that ought to be obvious.

I don't want to go into a situation that seems sure to go wrong - or to involve unacceptable risks to anybody involved.

Or a situation too likely to be unstable.

Everybody posting on this thread - without exception - has some trust - and some distrust of everybody else. Which seems proper to me.

gisterme - 02:52pm Oct 16, 2003 EST (# 15179 of 15180)

Will -

You responded to: 'When the scale of the project is one that is "globe spanning" as this one is, sometimes the only way to test is at the "real" scale. There's no way to do that in a lab.'

by saying,

"...There is no way to do it operationally, either. The problem is a fundamental one of how to discriminate real-world countermeasures from actual warheads..."

Let's don't forget that there's no way that a potential adversary can operationally test their countermeasures either. There's no way they could know for sure that they'd work against the defense (unless, of course, we tell them ourselves how to defeat the defense).

"...How will deploying ten interceptors that are incapable of fulfilling their mission advance the goal of building a reliable NMD system?..."

It wouldn't. So, let's deploy interecptors that are capable of fulfilling their mission. Where did you get the idea that anybody intended to deploy incapable interceptors? Maybe I should send a letter to Secretary Rumsfeld to remind him not to use the interceptors that are incapable of fulfilling thier mission. Just to be safe...in case he forgets. :-)

"...The only critical question is, "Is the system ready to deploy?"..."

That's not a critical qustion, Will. It looks as if the beginnings of deployment are going ahead, ready or not. If that's a critical question then it's already been answered by folks more knowledgeable than ourselves. There must be some good confidence among those in the know that the system is or will be workable by the time that long-lead facilities get built.

"...The answer hinges on its reliability in being able to discriminate real-world targets and kill them..."

Disagree. The answer hinges on whether or not our government feels that what we've got now is better than nothing given the context of the threat. Apparantly it does.

"...The reason Clinton delayed making a decision to deploy the system was the persistence of deep reservations regarding its effectiveness if confronted with unknown countermeasures.."

Now there's a really well thought out statement. If Clinton worried about such well-defined stuff, no wonder he couldn't get anything done. How can "effectiveness against the unknown" ever be quantified in any field of science or preparatory endeavor?

Let's just stick our heads in the sand...all together now, one two, three...dive!

:-)

"...You hope, apparently, that our adversaries will accommodate the NMD planners by choosing to try to strike at us with an ICBM, a weapon that is expensive, technologically sophisticated, difficult to manufacture, and easily traceable and highly vulnerable to detection and interdiction..."

And you hope that they don't. We both hope the same thing, Will. However, what they'll actually do, if anything, is unknown. Ahhhhh! Not "unknown" again! One, Two, Three...Heads down! :-)

So let's hope our missile defense proves to be effecive against the unknown should, God forbid, it ever be put to the test.

What I really hope is that the kinds of folks who might actually wish to do us harm by whatever means will come to their senses and the need for a BMD and extraordinary homeland defense efforts will go away.

Let's both hope for that.

(1 following message)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense