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 - 04:37pm Jan 28, 2002 EST (#11109 of 11114)

Sometimes things get better. It can happen quickly. Russia is in far better shape than she was last March -- see "Muddle in Moscow" http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=533129 .....

Russia, under Putin's leadership, faced up to problems it actually had, and moved forward in sensible ways.

What would happen if the United States used the resources it had more effectively? What if we made decisions with more of the honesty and competence that the rest of the world hopes for, and expects from America ?

We could have better security. Both because of increased military effectiveness and because we'd be more respected and less hated..

And if we took some of the resources now squandered on programs that can't possibly work, and spent them on real national needs -- a lot might get done. We might get a long way toward solving both the world's long term energy shortage, and global warming.

MD5902 rshowalter 6/23/01 6:05pm . . MD5903 rshowalter 6/23/01 6:21pm
MD5904 rshowalter 6/23/01 6:28pm . . MD5905 rshowalter 6/23/01 6:31pm
MD5906 rshowalter 6/23/01 6:32pm ...

Or do other worthwhile things. All the while spending every dime we reasonably can on missile defense.

It is a short list of MD programs that have any tactical promise. Perhaps none at all. We should do reasonable accounting, face facts rather than avoid them, and act in the national interest -- which would be the world interest, as well.

If Bush made the decision to do this, the nation would follow him.

rshow55 - 08:44am Jan 29, 2002 EST (#11110 of 11114)

People are people, but they are capable of honor , and when it matters enough, can do well. rshow55 "The Collapse of Enron-- Moderated" 1/29/02 8:36am

lchic - 02:24pm Jan 29, 2002 EST (#11111 of 11114)

Russia has released a black/blue postage stamp re terrorism - the blue represents peace ... wonder if these sell a treat on the Chetnyan border.

Nigeria - choas - no planning re storage of military munitions. The local people had 'no say' over the quality of storage. Unnecessary deaths.

Pakistan - looking to India for border troop withdrawals. These two leaders could do great things ... why not a few handshake agreements that draw them closer together.
Meantime Pakistan has small armies of mindset terrorists to combat.

gisterme - 05:58pm Jan 29, 2002 EST (#11112 of 11114)

rshow55 1/22/02 8:23pm

"...The more noise you make, gisterme , the easier it is for me be stand up to your "challenge.""

So do it, Robert!... But, why should how much noise I make have anything to do with how easy it is for you to "stand up to the challenge"? My noise level has nothing to do with the physical prolems involved. So if my noise level significantly affects your ability to stand up to the challenge, then a significant portion of the difficulty is just in your own head. If that's the case it's probably also true that the simplicity of the solution you assert is also just in your head.

I have never argued that the optical physics involved in the references you gave are not valid. I have argued that those theoretical principals are not so easily applied as you seem to think, especially using the kinds of materials you've proposed. Saying "impossible" is your thing, not mine. All I've really said is that a laser that can defeat any reflective coating is easier to imagine than a reflective coating that can defeat any laser.

Once again I say, this laser stuff is all BS anyway since it has no bearing on the BMD system currently being tested. Why do you keep trying to steer away from the promise that the system under test has been showing?

gisterme - 06:09pm Jan 29, 2002 EST (#11113 of 11114)

rshow55 1/23/02 1:24pm

"...But dollars spent on approaches that can't work, or that have only a tiny expected payoff, accounting for real risks, compared to huge and certain costs - - pulls away resources from approaches that could work..."

The approaches we're spending our $$ on now are working, Robert. That seems to be beside the point for you. So what are these alternative approaches that you'd agree could work?

gisterme - 06:20pm Jan 29, 2002 EST (#11114 of 11114)

rshow55 1/23/02 5:27pm

"...Why wasn't ABL rejected out of hand, after the first design sketches and calculations?..."

Because your mental extrapolations of reality to imaginary countermeasures have no scientific basis. They're just your feelings, Robert, based on a false premise. I doubt that your feelings were taken into account when the ABL test program destroyed its first target.

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense