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 - 07:36pm Feb 24, 2003 EST (# 9272 of 9284)
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.

Thanks, gisterme , for that tolerant remark.

It has been a big news day.

I have a sinking feeling. . . . I'm worried about making a mistake. . . . It seems to me that, though there may be some embarrassments . . . things are going well in terms of the real interests of peace . . .

unless things screw up. Which they could easily do.

Could it be that the US could "lose face" in a few ways - and get everything that actually matters?

I noticed that Sec. Powell made an unconditional offer of food to the N. Koreans today. Good move !

. . . .

I worry about stability, sometimes, and from the point of view of stability - I'm finding some things interesting. On the 11th, there was this:

U.S. Still Hopes to Get New U.N. Resolution Against Iraq By BRIAN KNOWLTON, International Herald Tribune http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/11/international/middleeast/11CND_POLI.html?pagewanted=print&position=top

WASHINGTON, Feb. 11 — The White House said today that it was conducting "intense diplomacy" in the face of strong European-led opposition to its tough approach on Iraq, and that it still hoped the United Nations Security Council would pass a new resolution on the use of military action against Baghdad.

But officials in Berlin and Paris said they believed they had enough votes to block any such resolution.

A spokesman for Chancellor Gerhard Schröder said that by Germany's count, 11 of 15 council members wanted to continue United Nations weapons inspections in Iraq. A French official tallied nine such votes, including those of Germany, which now heads the council, and China, Russia and France, all of which have veto power. Passage requires nine votes, with no veto.

President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia warned today that the United States would be making a "grave error" by taking military action against Iraq without the Security Council's assent, and he hinted that Russia might use its Security Council veto against "unreasonable use of force."

. . .

"This will all pass over and we will all remain as allies," he said. Mr. Fleischer said President Bush was confident that "we will remain an alliance, that we will remain unified, and that in the end Saddam Hussein will be disarmed thanks to the collective will of all."

. . .

"If the United Nations fails to compel "a dictator like Saddam Hussein" to comply with repeated resolutions demanding that he disarm, and watches as he remains defiant, "then who is breaking up the alliance?" Mr. Powell asked. "Not the United States. The alliance is breaking itself up because it will not meet its responsibilities."

Now, about two week later - there's a lot happening - and I see a pattern that may bother President Bush, short term, but please him on a broader basis: to an extent that hasn't happened in many, many years - other nations are taking responsibility for their own staff work - and thinking, rather than deferring.

And there's a lot of discussion - but nobody's talking in public about "letting Saddam off the hook".

That's progress.

A little messy in spots? Sure. But in some important ways, the most hopeful situation in many years. And one consistent with every reasonable security and economic interest that the United States has. Back later.

re adiabatic: Near the fairly bluff-shaped leading edge of the shuttle, at mach 20, an element of air would have less than 3 microseconds (millionths of a second) to go from rest and compress into the Mach 20 shock - little enough time for heat transfer. Pretty close to adiabatic. And that adiabatic temperature is far higher than the melting point of tungsten - much less the tiles.

Back later.

(12 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense