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 - 11:06am Feb 11, 2002 EST (#11479 of 11481)

I trust we're agreed on what adaptive optics is? MD11369 rshow55 2/8/02 6:12pm

I fee that this schematic diagram of the process involved in adaptive optics is very good, and I hope people look at it carefully. I hope we can agree that this schematic, and language connected to it, are well grounded references helping to define what adaptive optics is http://cfao.ucolick.org/images/aos_small.gif

( To get a bigger, clearer image of http://cfao.ucolick.org/images/aoscheme.gif . ... )

lchic - 12:53pm Feb 11, 2002 EST (#11480 of 11481)

Within amorphous organisations some projects
start-up and then take on a life of their own.
The history, rational, and reasoning are lost
as the initiators move on
abandoning these ever-funded,
now orphaned projects.

rshow55 - 01:15pm Feb 11, 2002 EST (#11481 of 11481)

And when that happens, a strong manager needs to look at facts, and do some trimming. Something Margaret Thatcher was quite able to do -- after she'd taken time, as she often did, to find out what the facts were.

I was most interested in Mrs Thatcher's Advice to a Superpower http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/11/opinion/11THAT.html I've been glad to read several of her books, including her book of speeches. She's a strong leader, respectful of fact.

Sometimes people of distinguished writing capability have participated on this thread. By the contact she posted, I have reason to believe that kangdawei , who contributed heavily to the thread, was Ann Coulter a lawyer and public figure

MD10204 rshowalter 10/9/01 11:13am ... MD10205 rshowalter 10/9/01 12:10pm

Trying to establish some facts (not about whether one should be for missile defense in general, but about what could in fact be done) I suggested this to "Coulter", who was "unavailable for comment."

" .... maybe we could have a date. I could take her to the Patent Office, for a day of real searching - - on something specific - - maybe two days. So she could learn what "impossible" means . . and what hope means, too, in technical fields."

Looking at Margaret Thatcher's piece, I thought how wonderful it might be if she'd do the same -- just a fantasy, I know. But Thatcher knows patents - - and however much we'd disagree on some political things, we'd agree on what technical sanity (and technically hopeful work) looks like.

I also did some musing -- on the choice of umpires to determine what was technically feasible, in the open literature. She might well be for right technical answers -- and might choose such umpires well.

She knows, I have no doubt, that weapons are supposed to work, and that money thrown away on technically flawed projects wastes chances.

I'm for missile defense means that work - - and that means I'm against boondoggles. She's been against boondoggles very often herself.

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense