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.

mazza9 - 02:55pm Aug 12, 2002 EST (#3672 of 3700)
"Quae cum ita sunt" Caesar's Gallic Commentaries

My daughter had two, count them, two dental appointments today so I've been dragging her around the Dallas area for the last two hours.

Robert: Why do I participate in this forum? I have an interest in defense policy and the forum question is more of a policy then a technical issue. To say it can or cannot work is very shortsighted. I once wrote a paper for a Honors History course which dealt with the issue of "German Unrestricted Submarine Warfare in WWI". I addressed the policy issues that confronted the Allies in light of international law at that time. In hind sight it was easy to view the issue of civilian casualties from this warfare in light of the intervening WWII.

A look at the treatment of General Billy Mitchell in light of his bombing tests which obsoleted the US Navy focus on Battleships, it is wrong to "hold with the old ways" because it isn't possible! Technology is always ahead of military doctrine and tactics. At present, we are building "fighter/bombers at $100 Million per unit. With today's communications, computers and control facitlities we can build unmanned vehicles to accomplish the mission at a fraction of the cost. Will the Air Force generals respond to this new technology or will the need for "manned" aircraft be the Air Force's reliance on the "battleships" of the air?

I guess my point is that this forum should be about the policy not the hardware. I've suggested that Ike was right about the Military Industrial Complex. But notice who he put first! The military is no differenc than any other portion of our government. The Generals become Industrialists just like the Politicians become Industrial lobbyists. Just as we have Enron and Global Crossing where a Rubin or McAuliff benefit from and modify the playing field for their clients, there is a need for an oversight mechanism to see that the true customers, (you and I) are properly protected. We know that in Robert's case this may not have been accomplished.

mazza9 - 02:58pm Aug 12, 2002 EST (#3673 of 3700)
"Quae cum ita sunt" Caesar's Gallic Commentaries

MORE:

Quae cum ita sunt, we need to focus on the "real" issues.

"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?"

SDI was announced and we were using Apple IIs early IBMs and the 286 was years away. Mainframes had 16 Meg of RAM and fiber was something you brushed off your suit. Today we have military command and control that was only hinted at in "Dr. Strangelove".

My Corp of Engineer analogy holds true. You want it they'll build/destroy it!!! The unanswered question is how do you deal with a regime that would rather invest their resources in an ICBM capability while their peope are literally eating dirt and starving? How do you deal with a dictator, Saddam who has used chemical weapons on dissidents. Does he display megalomania? "A delusional mental disorder that is marked by infantile feelings of personal omnipotence and grandeur." That's what I fear and no missile defense system alone can cope with it. But it is a defense that can minimize the risks to our homeland. I believe that the Clinton years were frittered away and we lost ground. His answer to threats against Pres Bush 41 was to lob a few missiles while casting the northern Kurds adrift. They lost their US support and were cancelled out by Saddam. Khobar Towers - lob a few missiles at an aspirin factory in Sudan, (which we are now paying reparations for!), and some tents in Afghanistan! USS Cole, speak strongly and do nuttin'. In essence we did nothing but waste that resource that is more precious than money, TIME!!!!!!!!!

China is bellicose but is being won over by a middle class that enjoys the pirated copies of "Attack of the Clones", the cell phones, and the Internet. Did you hear? they bought the remnants of Global Crossing? As we face the rogue states we must establish a strong stance. Interdiction you say, WRCooper? Defense? Maybe all of the above.

Oops I'm long winded. Must be Monday.

LouMazza

lchic - 04:04pm Aug 12, 2002 EST (#3674 of 3700)

Showalter - the last lchic post above had been sitting with the moderator for days ... the reason being - it contained a technical term related to format.

I had days back replaced the tech-word (g--i--f)with 'image'thus the post already sits within the thread.

lchic - 04:14pm Aug 12, 2002 EST (#3675 of 3700)

Climate Change - Global Warming - EU storms

German Insurance Companies are under pressure. They hedge on the share market, and in the current ($) low cashed-in returns won't be ($)high.

Showalter did have concerns on climate. One recalls his postings regarding the need for a 'top-down' approach to C02.

It seems that TOP DOWN rather than individual-up is the way to approach some problems that need fixing that affect all.

lchic2002~Tuesday13Aug

rshow55 - 04:33pm Aug 12, 2002 EST (#3676 of 3700)

Lou Mazza - The hardware issues count - and on this thread you've made hundreds of statements about hardware - making many very optimistic statements about specific programs - and doing so with authority and confidence.

Has that been based on anything more than a cheerleader's enthusiasm?

"Policy" issues may be interesting - but they reflect facts about what weapons systems can do, and can reasonably be expected to do.

When you made those hundreds of statements about hardware -- were you just fooling us?

These days, resources are limited, and the country can only afford so many multibillion dollar (or trillion dollar) mistakes. Or so many lethally wrong assumptions.

Are you against fact checking, or aren't you?

(24 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense