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 - 06:59pm Aug 29, 2002 EST (# 4004 of 4014)
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.

A lot of logic and reason is posted here. I've learned a lot from almarst's posts since March 2001 - and think many people have. He's been this thread's "Putin stand-in" since that time (as gisterme has been our "Bush administration senior advisor stand-in" )

and I believe that because of his thoughtful contributions - and many fine references - we've learned things that make the world more productive and safer, and clarified many of the things that matter most about missile defense. Psychwar, Casablance and Terror #187 deals with work on this thread as of May 12, 2001 - - work that has continued. http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/198

The country and the leader almarst stands in for on this thread has made a lot of progress since the time of Muddle in Moscow http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=533129 and the world is better and safer for it.

Almarst , from his entry to this forum last March, has been concerned about the causes of war, the reasons the the US military is so large - and about interdependent matters of military balances, both nuclear and conventional. His concerns about missile defense have been in that context. So have many of mine and lchic's.

So have a great many of gisterme's thoughtful, deeply staffed postings. I haven't always agreed with almarst , or gisterme either. Though lchic and I have tried to be useful to both of them.

There's been plenty of technical discussion, too - - and the main reason key technical issues aren't closed is that, these days, with current practices - it isn't possible to get closure on anything . Lchic and I and almarst have been concerned about that. Often gisterme has been as well.

rshow55 - 07:01pm Aug 29, 2002 EST (# 4005 of 4014)
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.

The 1986 Pulitzer prize for explanatory journalism went to the staff of New York Times -

. "For a six-part comprehensive series on the Strategic Defense Initiative, which explored the scientific, political and foreign policy issues involved in "Star Wars."

There's been an enormous amount of writing and discussion about missile defense since that time. What's left to discuss? If what's needed is closure to clear answers, in the ways that matter - almost everything about the scientific, political, and foreign policy issues involved. Not because the facts and relations are unclear - but because, these days, nothing gets to closure

This thread has been largely devoted to that problem - which is closely related to "Plato's problem" - - and related questions about "the odds." Issues of survival, prosperity, war and peace hinge on these questions - and I believe that on this thread there's been progress about them that can be permanently useful.

Working in ways I hope have been of interest to journalists - and particularly the New York Times - which tries to use reason to persuade - and sometimes finds the truth "somehow, too weak."

The weakness of truth - and the presentation of it has been a key concern at the TIMES for a long time - often with the highest possible stakes Turning Away for the Holocaust by Max Frankel http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/14/specials/onefifty/20FRAN.html . . and stakes are high now.

(9 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense