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 - 09:07pm Nov 3, 2003 EST (# 16414 of 16415)
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.

rshow55 - 04:07pm Oct 19, 2003 EST (# 15244 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.NMRTbrmZUdI.1064483@.f28e622/16957 reads:

Suppose I had a clear answer to my security restriction question. So that I knew what my restrictions were clearly - and other people and groups could know that clearly, too. Administratively when that was required. Some people might choose to call me "crazy" - but that craziness would coexist with output like this:

. 1623 http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7b2bd/1792

. 1624 http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7b2bd/1793 and that output would be mine and unencumbered.

14871 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.NMRTbrmZUdI.1064483@.f28e622/16582

I've been perfectly happy for people to choose to "call me Ishmael" for a long time. http://www.mrshowalter.net/CaseyRel.html

The story I like best about me, in this regard, is that I'm just a guy who got interested in logic, and military issues. A guy who got concerned about nuclear danger, and related military balances, and tried to do something about it. Based on what he knew - with no access to special information of any kind, he made an effort to keep the world from blowing up, using the best literary devices he could fashion, consistent with what he knew or could guess.

On October 3, there was a sequence of postings on the NYT Missile Defense forum - and all the NYT forums were closed down thereafter for four days. I was cut off sometime less than an hour after I posted this:

" it is now technically easy to shoot down every winged aircraft the US has, or can expect to build - to detect every submarine - and to sink every surface ship within 500 miles of land - the technology for doing this is basic - and I see neither technical nor tactical countermeasures."

- and the disclosure and some connected circumstances are discussed, with links, at http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?13@@.ee9b7ef/278 . Suppose that the technical work is just something I did to support my story. I could accept that as a government determination - if it was clear.

I could live with a stable fiction - and so could other people.

2064 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.NMRTbrmZUdI.1064483@.f28e622/2567 seems coherent enough, it is from a while ago, and in includes this:

" How, given the rules of security laws, and my particular circumstances, am I to live my life? How can I practice any ordinary profession, or talk extensively to anyone - in the ordinary, day-to-day manner people do?

" How can I do these ordinary things - without putting both myself and others at risk?

A certificate of non-involvement, from the government, could serve my needs very well - and the government has known that for a long time now.

2064 contains some interesting references - whatever anyone may think of me:

. Secrecy The American Experience by Daniel Patrick Moynihan , with and introduction by Richard Gid Powers, Yale Press, 1998.

and

New Details Emerge From the Einstein Files By DENNIS OVERBYE http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/07/science/physical/07EINS.html

I think a response from the government that reflected what really happened would be best - but a stable fiction - that could be used administratively - would work for me - and would work for the people who I'd need to work with.

This thread output is as it is, for instance - and it seems to have met high enough standards to elicit the fine work of fredmoore.

When I last talked to Casey - we both knew that "coming in" would be complicated - but we also felt that - given a face to face hearing - the NYT could easily and quietly sort the problem out. That turned out to be wrong. When it turned out to be wrong - I did the best I could to keep faith.

(1 following message)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense