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 - 10:11am Aug 31, 2002 EST (# 4063 of 4069)
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.

MD1076 rshow55 4/4/02 1:20pm , modified to remove a few distractions, follows:

Discussion of missile defense on this thread exists in a context.
872 rshow55 3/27/02 3:59pm ... 876 rshow55 3/27/02 4:54pm

You could argue that I've been moving slowly since the time of the following postings.

Challenge, questions, and invokation of the need for force:
727 rshow55 3/20/02 8:58pm ... 728 rshow55 3/20/02 9:32pm
729 rshow55 3/20/02 9:37pm

Counterchallenge:
763 gisterme 3/22/02 1:34pm

Comment and response:
779 manjumicha2001 3/23/02 2:28am ... 782-783 rshow55 3/23/02 11:15am

MD84 rshow55 3/2/02 11:52am

Perhaps I have been moving slowly. One reason is that I've felt that things have been moving toward a situation where a lot of things could get solved. Another reason is that it is essential to get situations set up where right answers are possible -- rather than certain to be evaded.

A key reason to want technical answers to questions about missile defense is that those answers would move toward larger answers to questions the whole world needs, and is coming to know it needs:

rshow55 - 12:21pm Apr 4, 2002 EST (#1077 of 1077)

. . . this thread has been going on since the middle of 2000, and I've been active on it since September 25, 2000. A great deal has been accomplished on this thread, I believe, and it sometimes helps to review the headings that it has had, and some of the history.

MD757 rshow55 3/22/02 10:54am ... MD 14-15 rshow55 3/1/02 6:07pm

Some of my background, which you also know, was on this thread before March 2, and is now set out on a Guardian thread .. Psychwarfare, Casablanca -- and terror

217-219 http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?13@@.ee7a163/228

273-277 http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?13@@.ee7a163/289

278-279 http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/294

I believe that I'm doing, as nearly as it possibly can be done, exactly what Bill Casey would want me to do now, for the good of the United States of America, and for the safety and decency of the world.

Citations to MD1076-77 rshow55 4/4/02 1:20pm

2315 rshow55 5/19/02 3:03pm ... 3655 rshow55 8/12/02 8:40am
3658 rshow55 8/12/02 9:06am ... 3781 rshow55 8/17/02 9:10pm
3793 rshow55 8/17/02 9:12pm ... 3806 rshow55 8/18/02 8:42pm
3828 rshow55 8/20/02 7:19am ...

Cooper, I'll answer your questions in more technical detail - but these issues of process matter here.

The history of their discussion - including the responses by gisterme over a period of months, are interesting, too.

rshow55 - 10:16am Aug 31, 2002 EST (# 4064 of 4069)
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.

wrcooper 8/31/02 10:03am - - if you can find me a professional engineer to talk to on this thread, with a valid, checkable name , we could go through the reasons for my "factors of thousands or millions" in specific cases -- including the hit to kill system the Coyle report treats - and the beam weapons.

But I'd want somebody with a name -- and some competence - so that closure is possible.

Could I be wrong? Sure.

But I think that these large factors I gave - far fetched as they may seem -- are justified.

Outrageous factors?

It seems to me that, by now, it is the programs that are outrageous.

(5 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense