Missile Defense

Perhaps because of the phrase with emphasis added, and perhaps for some other reason, (perhaps by accident) the article does not occur in the NYT archives.

A competent control engineer, knowledgeable about the missile defense systems involved, cross examined about what that contrail indicated, would have to admit that the accuracy objectives of the program were - to put the matter gently indeed - far fetched.

rshowalter - 04:00pm Apr 22, 2001 EST (#2511 of 2516)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Gently indeed.

rshowalter - 04:54pm Apr 22, 2001 EST (#2512 of 2516)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Moderator: In an attempt to correct the absence of an italics, to identify a phrase, I did some deletions -- which (and this is good) have not been carried out. In 2510 -- the phrase I wished to put in quotations and italics is in quotes and italics below.

The picture with the piece - showing the contrail results of gross servo-instability in a interceptor test last year, shows how very far short we now are from the "we can do it" assumption that makes the difference between practical beauty, and gross and dangerous ugliness, for this strategy. (emphasis added)

Please disregard the string of deletions I executed recently. Thank you.

(And if you think it right to delete this posting, please do so.)

Bob

rshowalter - 05:01pm Apr 22, 2001 EST (#2513 of 2516)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

servzone0 4/21/01 8:40pm

" It certainly needs to be bi partisan, don't you agree?"

Yes I do. I did not vote for George W. Bush, but if John McCain or Colin Powell had been the Republican candidate last year, I would have voted Republican.

It is seldom that the Republican Party's interest can be massively in conflict with the United States national interest. And on the basis of set assumptions, it can be clear enough what that national interest is. If assumptions that make sense to me are right, certain key issues are not going to be evadable.

If assumptions that make sense to me are right, it is strongly in the Repubican interest, and the National interest, for crimes to be detected and punished, and for Colin Powell to become, quickly, President of the United States. That would be the practical, beautiful thing to do if those assumptions are true.

I think almost all Americans would be likely to agree to that, in terms of these assumptions. Assumptions that can and should be checked , by Americans, and by interested people elsewhere in the world.

A pattern can be "beautiful in terms of one set of assumptions" -- and that can be clear to all concerned -- and yet "ugly in terms of another set of assumptions" -- and this can be clear, as well -- even without agreement about assumtions. So people can not only be b "agreed to disagree" -- they can also be b "agreed on the details of what they are disagreeing about." rshowalter 4/20/01 10:36pm

Key facts, which could be determined, are these:

1. Is "missile defense" as it has been sold, a massive technical fraud, involving the use of funds under false pretense, lying on a big scale to Congress, and the great risk and inconvenience of the entire world?

2. Have large misappropriations of funds, involving illegal conduct in massive disregard to standards of public responsibliity, occured that have funded the right wing in American politics, and enriched members of "the military industrial complex" in indefensible ways?

If the answer is "yes" to either 1 and 2, then it is in the interest of the Republican party to take action, in the National interest and its own, or risk the honor and existence of the party itself. If the answer to both is "yes" this should be true beyond any reasonable question.

(3 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense