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 - 05:25pm Dec 11, 2002 EST (# 6506 of 6517)
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.

and we never did quite manage to get rid of nukes by Christmas 2000, did we rshow?

In fact, there was no effort to do so. You're referring to things I said in my all day "web meeting" with "beckq" on September 25, 2000, set out in part from 1595 rshow55 4/21/02 2:11pm to 1602 rshow55 4/21/02 2:22pm

The first point answered a question Casey had put to me - - if the US and Russia wanted nuclear disarmament -- how could it be arranged? Some of the patterns set out have some resemblence to the distrustful checking process negotiated with respect to Iraq.

1602 rshow55 4/21/02 2:22pm , included this:

"I'd be grateful for a chance to come before you, or one or more of your representatives, and explain, in detail, with documentation and ways to check, how dangerous this situation is. "

Had I been permitted that audience (and a visit with a Light Colonel with a tape recorder might have done) a lot of things might have gone better. If I was being indirect, it was because I was protecting a secret, which I finally set out, after years of work, at gisterme's suggestion -- perhaps others wouldn't consider it worth so much trouble - but some people in my past taught me to care about it. Here is the thing I was hoping to communicate to a responsible officer - face-to-face:

. " 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."

4739 and 4740 rshow55 10/3/02 8:14am . . . http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/364

That point, if understood by leaders of nation states - would go a long way toward making military agression a losing proposition.

As Commondata points out " we never did quite manage to get rid of nukes by Christmas 2000, did we rshow? " Of course, we didn't. And the Clinton administration didn't do some things that it could have done to help get Gore elected, that might have happened otherwise, either.

But has the time on this thread been wasted since? I think not. http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7b2bd/1662 includes this:

Here are some things that lchic and I are working for – many of them expressed in various ways on the NYT Missile Defense forum, and on these Guardian-Talk boards.

We hope to help other able, reasonably like minded people find a way to rid the world of weapons of mass destruction – in ways that are actually workable. Ways that may not be perfect, but that can take incidence of loss and death from such weapons far, far below the incidence of death and loss we have to live with from natural disasters. Ways that also eliminate any humanly workable reason for using them, even for people at their worst. Ways that have enough support from the human race that they are remembered, and effective, for as long as anyone can foresee. It looks to us like these things are becoming possible.

Though the comments in commondata 12/11/02 2:55pm are right enough.

almarst2002 - 05:38pm Dec 11, 2002 EST (# 6507 of 6517)

Robert,

On your response above.

I may agree with your points. You may be right but the so called public oppinion is probably considered quite firmly under full control. Otherwise such ideas as expansion of NATO and related re-militarisation of Europe could not be even mentioned. Instead, it is openly and insistently promoted. As well as acceptance of the so called Bushe's Doctrine.

almarst2002 - 05:52pm Dec 11, 2002 EST (# 6508 of 6517)

Bush Funds Iran Terrorist group - http://english.pravda.ru/main/2002/12/11/40695.html

(9 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense