New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

Nazi engineer and Disney space advisor Wernher Von Braun helped give us rocket science. Today, the legacy of military aeronautics has many manifestations from SDI to advanced ballistic missiles. Now there is a controversial push for a new missile defense system. What will be the role of missile defense in the new geopolitical climate and in the new scientific era?

dirac_10 - 09:47pm Jan 10, 2001 EST (#559 of 573)

One thing's for sure, when the missles are in the air, and you know some day they will be, none of the talking heads will be talking about the missle defense system costing too much.

They will be running in fear, totally unconcerned with a trivial thing like the US budget.

Wishing, hoping, praying, that they could go back in time and spend quite a bit more.

dirac_10 - 09:51pm Jan 10, 2001 EST (#560 of 573)

bigred152 - 09:40pm Jan 10, 2001 EST (#558 of 559)

It may be true, it may not. We will probably find out.

But that article is a joke. Totally worthless as any kind of evidence.

Downright propaganda. Scientifically worthless.

dirac_10 - 09:56pm Jan 10, 2001 EST (#561 of 573)

Three children in Iraq have cancer.

All three played with bomb fragments.

Goodness knows, they must be the only 3 that did.

And of course a doctor made a map and showed it to him. Well, there it was, printed and all. How can you refute that? Printed proof. Right there in black and white. A picture. A picture he made. And the guy that made it was a real doctor no less.

zero_pattern - 11:42am Jan 11, 2001 EST (#562 of 573)

I think that the only thing for sure that we will be feeling when we run for cover from missles (and to say that it WILL happen is to imply some ability to gaze into the future) will not be "gee, I wish we spent a little more on missle defense," it will be "why didn't we realize until it is too late that the more weapons we point out at the world, the more weapons the world points back at us."

We live in a time when we are talking about MORE weapons when in fact we should be talking about LESS weapons.

America has always been hailed as a promoter of peace, and yet we build nationalist defenses that suggest that lives are qualitatively worth more if they're American lives. We never look at the value of LIFE, regardless of nationality. As a result, more defenses mean more walls erected that eventually need to be removed if real peace is ever to be achieved. More defense gives the impression of isolationist posturing, which leads to the desintegration of relationship with the citizens of the world, which will ALWAYS lead to conflict. And after all, is it not the citizens of the world that we need to be concerned about? How long can the ideologically seperatist notions of nationalism, partisanship, religious intolerance and feverish radicalism (either of the left or the right) continue without being recognized for what they are -- the very things that will destroy us.

We bring more weapons into the world, and then point our fingers at people for using them. Then as a result, we find that we need to use weapons to stop people from using weapons (it brings to mind the old folk tale of a man who is transformed into a creature as a result of his need for death, who eventually must devour himself because all other animals had fallen prey to his bloodlust).

AMERICA IS THE BEST COUNTRY TO SET THE STANDARD FOR NON-PROLIFERATION AND EVENTUAL DISMANTLING OF THE INDUSTRIAL MILITARY COMPLEX. But we won't, because guns are big business, and war makes too many industries rich.

I guess the argument to be vollied against the premise of this post is that without more defense we won't be as safe. Well, I hate to break it to all of you, but "safe" is a fleeting sense of security that has nothing to do with the amount of military defense we have, or the number of guns you have stashed in your closet. There is actually no such thing as "safe," there is only the NEED that we have to FEEL secure -- which in itself is the most obviouse sign of insecurity one can display.

dirac_10 - 01:55pm Jan 11, 2001 EST (#563 of 573)

rshowalter - 08:56pm Jan 10, 2001 EST (#556 of 562)

There are some very good arguments for outlawing nuclear weapons EFFECTIVELY. That could be made to work.

In a pigs eye. I don't suppose you could give a clue how this stunning miracle is supposed to happen?

Anti-missile missiles, so far, have not worked,

Anti-ICBM anti missles yes, but we haven't spent any money. It ain't like there ain't no such thing as missles that hit moving targets. They can hit a 2000 mph jet everytime. Like sitting ducks, and they have humans helping dodge if necessary.

and show no prospect of working.

And what, pray tell do you base that on? Read it in the paper?

And they have been tried at a high effort level.

Hardly. I'm talking Manhattan Prject. Our very survival is the first priority.

Oh, what might be achieved if even remotely the same effort level went into GETTING RID of nuclear weapons....

Well, you are going to have to talk 100 countries and terrorist groups into voluntarily following the plan in the next decade or two.

Unless it's backed up by force, there ain't no chance whatsoever it will happen. And the force, by definition, would have to be nuclear and overwhelming.

(10 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense