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.

bbbuck - 07:37pm Nov 22, 2002 EST (# 6192 of 6193)
"I know I have an expiration date. I just want it to be way in the future. Like a cheeto" - B

Ladies and gentleman, spamers and spamees, and you too lunarchick,
I would like to announce my vacating my position as the class 1 taunter on this forum.
My mission was 4 fold.
1. To taunt the spammers.
2. To not get thrown off.
3. To get lunarchick and rshow55 to post once or twice or thrice even, a day. 4. To feed my hamster.
My taunting supervisor has graded my success and has given me a flunking grade. sniff...sniff...
Though my hamster is still alive, is symmetrical, has been checked, and can connect dots, that is not enough.
A class 2 taunter was employed independently yesterday, his moniker was wordspew or wordspray, or something, and he was quite ineffective(as I knew he would be(a class 2 taunter seldom has the patience needed for this task)).
So I bid you each adieu and hope you have successful checking sessions in the future.
So long, and my hamster says 'Hey'. I have failed

rshow55 - 07:37pm Nov 22, 2002 EST (# 6193 of 6193)
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.

Posting on Psychwarfare, Casablanca - - - and terror represent a lot of effort on my part - and I think a lot of those postings are worth reading - perhaps especially since mid September. They are condensed and crossreferenced summaries of things said here.

Here is the link to the Oct 12 posting http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/364

On October 3, there was a sequence of postings on the NYT Missile Defense forum - and all the NYT forums were closed down thereafter for four days. I was cut off sometime less than an hour after I posted this

" it is now technically easy to shoot down every winged aircraft the US has, or can expect to build - to detect every submarine - and to sink every surface ship within 500 miles of land - the technology for doing this is basic - and I see neither technical nor tactical countermeasures."

All of the NYT forums were shut down for "urgent maintenance" shortly thereafter. Some of the material involved in that day's posting was set out, with supporting technical detail, in postings #330-338 of Psychwarfare, Casablanca . . . and terror , an International Talk thread (for links, click " rshowalter " http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?224@@2cb4d7cb@.ee7a163/364 ). Postings #330-338 of Psychwarfare have been referred to repeatedly on the NYT MD forum since it reappeared on the 7th.

When the NYT forums reappeared, I was pleased that only a few postings after 9:14 am NY time were deleted, and that the last postings permitted to remain when the forums reappeared on the 7th were my 4739 and 4740 rshow55 10/3/02 8:14am

Anybody who thinks that

"If the missile's guidance system can "see" the target the target will almost always be hit even if it is maneuvering. "

would dismiss that as a coincidence.

If gisterme , or anybody else, can find an engineer, with a name and an engineering ticket to put at risk, who'd say

"If the missile's guidance system can "see" the target the target will almost always be hit even if it is maneuvering. "

and say that subject to crossexamination - I'd be quite surprised. The statement is grossly false.

Out.

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense