New York Times Readers Opinions
The New York Times
Home
Job Market
Real Estate
Automobiles
News
International
National
Politics
Business
Technology
Science
Health
Sports
New York Region
Education
Weather
Obituaries
NYT Front Page
Corrections
Opinion
Editorials/Op-Ed
Readers' Opinions


Features
Arts
Books
Movies
Travel
Dining & Wine
Home & Garden
Fashion & Style
New York Today
Crossword/Games
Cartoons
Magazine
Week in Review
Multimedia
College
Learning Network
Services
Archive
Classifieds
Personals
Theater Tickets
Premium Products
NYT Store
NYT Mobile
E-Cards & More
About NYTDigital
Jobs at NYTDigital
Online Media Kit
Our Advertisers
Member_Center
Your Profile
E-Mail Preferences
News Tracker
Premium Account
Site Help
Privacy Policy
Newspaper
Home Delivery
Customer Service
Electronic Edition
Media Kit
Community Affairs
Text Version
TipsGo to Advanced Search
Search Options divide
go to Member Center Log Out
  

 [F] 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.


Earliest Messages Previous Messages Recent Messages Outline (4810 previous messages)

lchic - 11:59am Oct 11, 2002 EST (# 4811 of 4814)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

http://www.europedaily.com/


rshow55 - 12:22pm Oct 11, 2002 EST (# 4812 of 4814) Delete Message
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.

mazza9 10/11/02 11:55am - - I'm fully aware of how ineffective AA technology is now. #330-339 in Psychwarfare, Casablanca - - - and terror http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/352 sets out new technology - though only so new - - the key reference on polynomial processing was written in 1989, according to Casey's instructions - and has been on the web most of the time since.

We need to accomodate the fact that technical progress doesn't stop. Right now, the US is making huge strategic errors, and making trillion dollar deployment errors - because of a reluctance to face facts that would have shamed Casey.

mazza9 - 01:42pm Oct 11, 2002 EST (# 4813 of 4814)
"Quae cum ita sunt" Caesar's Gallic Commentaries

Robert

The Sep 30, 2002 Aviation Week reported that TRW is developing a laser weapon for F-16s and other manned and unmanned aircraft. It will be pod mounted and will have a 10km range. It wll be capable of engaging ground and airborne targets. It can be used against cruise missiles, (by gosh, like the Spitfires that defended London from the V-1 assault!)

Why this amounts to a mini ABL system. Guess those nasty bad guys will apply reflective coatings to their crusie missiles. Good Luck!

It's just been announced that Buck Showalter will be the new manager of the Texas Rangers. Tell the truth, aren't you really a baseball manager with a journeyman's understanding of math and no connection to the CIA? Now that you mention it, there is a Stenglese tone to your punditry! I'll bet your really George Will! Yep! By Gosh there's a W in your last name and also one in George Will's. Ooh! The dots are lining up.

Question? "Who's on First?" "I Don't Know. "Third Base!"

More Messages Recent Messages (1 following message)

 Read Subscriptions  Cancel Subscriptions  Search  Post Message
 Your Preferences

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  / Missile Defense





Home | Back to Readers' Opinions Back to Top


Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company | Privacy Policy | Contact Us