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.

gisterme - 06:45pm Dec 21, 2002 EST (# 6912 of 6916)

lunarchick 12/21/02 4:43pm

"...Tyrants : How can a general population insulate themselves, spot, recognise, sniff out the weirdo-greed dictator..."

Hire the Lunarchic Leader Checking Agency of course. Hmmm. LLCA. Sounds like a good cause! Would the agency be available to sniff out Saddam?

"...When do 'gut reactions' across a whole population kick-in?..."

They never kick in across a whole population, lunarchick. Following a "gut reaction" requires faith. Once something is happening to a whole population they can see what is going on and no gut reaction or faith is required. Historically, whole populations have perceived "what is going on" just after it's too late to do anything elegant about it.

"...When do people want a 'better deal' for 'the people'?..."

Always. Can you name a single time that people haven't wanted a better deal for themselves? Isn't the desire for a "better deal" the very fuel that drives all human creativity and accomplishment? If it isn't I'd like to know what is.

"...When do winds of change blow through a nation?..."

Usually just before people realize that it's too late to do anyting elegant about it.

"...Looking forwards --- Looking back

"...What are the conditions for successful social change, and improved deal, a fairer sharing of a national pie!?"

Sharing of the pie by whom? People within the nation or without?

If the answer is "within" then leadership that represents, works toward and is accountable to the best interest of the people is the prerequisite.

If the answer is "without", I'd say it won't happen much any more because the age of empire is over.

There are a few loose ends yet. Iraq is one. If Saddam is removed by force (that's up to him) then it will be interesting to see what happens in Iraq afterwards. With the dictator removed and a government in Iraq that represents the true needs of its people and having all that wealth potential in the form of oil, I'd expect Iraq to flourish and become an economic powerhouse in the region. They should be able to keep all their fiscal commitments to other creditor nations like Russia and the Europeans, perhaps in the interest of restoring good will, make some reparations to harmed neighbors like Iran and Kuwait, and still rapidly improve their own lot at home. There's nothing stopping them right now but one bloody dictator.

gisterme - 07:08pm Dec 21, 2002 EST (# 6913 of 6916)

commondata 12/21/02 2:52pm

"...Is this true? - I just have the common sense view that a system designed to hit a bullet should be able to hit bigger, slower objects as well..."

That's not a common sense view, commondata. That's just ignorance about the things you're talking about. Don't feel bad about it. We can't know everything.

"...It seems even CNN has some conscience when it comes to being truthful, though we don't hear much of this argument:

http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/east/05/02/china.arms/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/12/18/missile.requests/index.html

I wouldn't be too concerned about those things if I were you, commondata. They're just being said in hopes that there will be a bit of grease for the squeaky wheels. Russia and China could well benefit from some protection themselves. The Russians have been actively fighting terrorists since long before 911.

"...We do, don't we Gisterme - why are we building another one [missile offense system] ?

We aren't. You've been sadly misinformed.

"...Indeed, but the U.S. Missile Offense system will do nothing but guarantee the opposite...."

There is no new missile offense system coming out of the US...so your statement past "indeed" cannot be true. Repeating a falsehood, no matter how many times, will not make it the truth, commondata. Why should I have to remind you of that?

But wait! Have I misunderstood your intent? Were you actually referring to the missile offense systems that are being developed by NK, Iraq and Iran? Apparently not. You cleary say "US".

The gisterme prescription to treat your lack of physical knowledge about how things work would be for you to pursue a bit more education in the area of physics, commondata.

commondata - 07:46pm Dec 21, 2002 EST (# 6914 of 6916)

gisterme 12/21/02 7:08pm

I said: I just have the common sense view that a system designed to hit a bullet should be able to hit bigger, slower objects as well.

You said: That's not a common sense view, commondata. That's just ignorance ... You've been sadly misinformed ... treat your lack of physical knowledge ... pursue a bit more education in the area of physics, commondata.

I'm always eager to learn, Gisterme, and this is an important point, and if I'm wrong I'd like to be corrected. What in the laws of physics prevents a missile that is designed to hit another missile from also being able to hit helicopters and fixed wing aircraft? If the answer is "nothing" then could the new "smart bullets" be considered an offensive weapon? If they can be considered an offensive weapon why shouldn't there be an arms race?

(2 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense