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 - 01:16am Feb 15, 2002 EST (#11551 of 11565)

You've given us an example of some "creative" editing of:

gisterme 2/14/02 3:04pm

in:

rshow55 2/14/02 4:33pm

"...If effective countermeasures against a class of BMD systems is something like a million times cheaper to develop than the BMD system itself, that's not a "keepable secret."..."

"...gisterme: .... "No doubt about it, Robert." . . ."

What you left off was: "...If such effective contermeasures existed or were known to be possible, it would be no secret, as you've suggested..."

"...Nor is it a secret to keep from Congress, or the American people..."... "

You continued:

"gisterme: Right again..."

What you left off was: "...If such effective contermeasures existed or were known to be possible, it would be no secret, as you've suggested."

Of course the complete statements didn't quite suit your purpose I suppose. You didn't mention that even when I was agreeing with you, suddenly the point of your own statements also didn't suit your purpose. So you just abondoned them. Why?

"...I feel that the same would apply if "a million times" were some smaller number (such as "a hundred thousand times" or "ten thousand times.")..."

"...Gisterme might agree..."

I'd agree that if such "cheap" countermeasures as you imagine existed it would be no secret. That being the case, along with the fact that we know of no such countermeasures, they are therefore unlikely to exist.

"...If NMD cost 200 billion, a million times lower cost would be 200,000$ -- a hundred thousand times lower cost would be 2 million, ten thousand times lower cost would be 20 million..."

As you've said, if such countermeasures exist whatever their cost may be, we'd know about them, even if it was only 20 cents.

"...My judgement might be wrong..."

If you say so, mate.

"...- - but the reasons behind the judgement are pretty clear --..."

Yes they are. You'd rather see our cities get nuked than do what it takes to prevent same. You seem to have the idea that American world conquest to keep others from having WMD is preferable to the prophylactic approach of just rendering those WMD ineffective.

"...and some are set out already on this thread..."

Some??? Are you holding back the best for last, Robert?

gisterme - 01:55am Feb 15, 2002 EST (#11552 of 11565)

rshow55 2/14/02 6:49pm

Thanks for listing the assumptions you feel that Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld was making when he was interveiwed by Senator Kennedy on NMD.

From: http://www.aip.org/enews/fyi/2001/009.html

Sen. Kennedy was asking in light of two recent failures, "How do you know when you're succeding with NMD? How will you quantify success?" (my paraphrase of the question).

What Secretary Rumsfeld said: Senator, I would really like to avoid setting up hurdles on this subject. I think back -- I was reading the book "Eye in the Sky," about the Corona program and the first overhead satellite, and recalling that it failed something like 11, 12, or 13 times during the Eisenhower administration and the Kennedy administration. And they stuck with it, and it worked, and it ended up saving billions of dollars in -- because of the better knowledge we achieved.

Robert, you say, based on the above, that Mr. Rumsfeld has made...

"...1. The assumption that "sticking with it" is always a good answer..."

Huh? You've reached a far-fetched conclusion there, Robert. Mr. Rumsfeld simply pointed out a past case that having a similar technological context paid off big-time in spite of early failures. That "sticking with it" in that case was the right thing to do.

The implied point he made to Sen. Kennedy (one apparently well taken) was that the NMD interceptor program has already had considerably better success in its early testing stages, in spite of failures, than that other phenominally successful program did. I don't see where any such blanket assumption as you suggest is made from what's there, Robert. I just see a comparison between two programs and a suggestion that the time-tested adage "if at first you don't succeed, try, try again" applies to NMD. The stakes are high in this case, Robert. That's why it's worthwhile to work through the problems. That's not at all the same as "sticking with it" is always a good answer.

rshow55 - 07:52am Feb 15, 2002 EST (#11553 of 11565)

Gisterme , that's a good night's work, and I want to leave it stand, rather than bury it, for a little while. Want to do your comments justice. Hope folks read them.

Here's a passage from A Good Night's Work http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/15/opinion/_15FRI1.html

The discipline with which reform supporters from both parties held together in the House was heartening — even if the underlying message was simply that legislators have finally begun to believe that their constituents really do care about fixing the corrupt big-money system of financing campaigns.

. . . .

"Rarest of all yesterday was the spectacle of Democrats and Republicans working together, not always comfortably, on something that has the potential of changing the way business is done in Washington. Certainly the lawmakers were laboring under the heat of another rolling scandal, in this case the Enron donations that spread like mud through the Capitol corridors. But it is a rare moment when one could use the word "inspiring" to describe the work of lawmakers in trying to rise above the mud around them. If the Senate now acts in the same spirit, one of the most important reforms in generations can be enacted very soon.

Sometimes good things get done. It isn't easy, or quick, or elegant, and it takes a lot of talking.

(12 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense