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 - 07:44am Oct 28, 2002 EST (# 5333 of 5341)
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.

1896 rshow55 4/30/02 9:10am reads:

MD1575 rshow55 4/20/02 4:51pm asks more detailed questions connected to the simple ones above, and continues:

These missile defense programs need to be evaluated in a reasonable tactical context, subject to the countermeasures that can reasonably be expected and specified.

For action, there would have to be "fights" about these questions -- contractors, and the military, would have to be forced to contest these issues. - Or accept anwers on a clear nolo contenre basis. If world leaders wanted to bring this force to bear -- one way or another -- it could be done -- and pretty gracefully. . . . .

(here, there's a need for forced inspections dealing with entities with long histories of hiding facts and basic relations.)

Mechanisms for actually getting the questions above answered, in ways that would be required for practical decision, have been discussed on this thread for nearly a year, and in some detail recently.

Challenge, questions, and invokation of the need for force:
728 rshow55 3/20/02 7:58pm ... 729 rshow55 3/20/02 8:32pm
730 rshow55 3/20/02 8:37pm

Counterchallenge:
MD764 gisterme 3/22/02 12:34pm

Comment and response:
780 manjumicha2001 3/23/02 1:28am ... 783-784 rshow55 3/23/02 10:15am

Key technical background links: MD84 rshow55 3/2/02 10:52am

I raised some related questions in MD1240 rshow55 4/10/02 5:45pm and there was some discussion in MD1242-1243 gisterme 4/11/02 12:55am . . . .MD1255- 1268 rshow55 4/11/02 6:32am , MD1281-1282 gisterme 4/12/02 2:00am , and in MD 1290 rshow55 4/12/02 8:45am

"gisterme" , MD thread's "Condoleezza Rice stand-in" said

"These "questions" that you've pronounced to be so important seem to have little substance when exposed to the harsh glare of reality."

Well then, why not subject them to a "harsh glare of reality" sufficient to actually establish the key facts and relations? It is in the national interest to do so. But there are very strong military-industrial intersts, and usages, that are set up to suppress discussion of the most key questions about system feasibility.

How do these things get to closure ? That is a technical question, and to a very large extent, a question about formats, and rules. Current rules are falling short. Often, I'm falling short, as well, but I've been working to get these points across.

lchic - 07:44am Oct 28, 2002 EST (# 5334 of 5341)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

http://www.politicalresources.net/u-org_war.htm

(7 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense