Missile Defense

If there were good reasons -- we should have heard them by now -- and we should surely hear them soon.

rshowalter - 03:17pm Apr 30, 2001 EST (#2836 of 2840)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

kate_nyt 4/30/01 3:07pm

b) You seem to consistently and persistently believe that our nuclear weapons are vulnerable to hacker attack: THEY ARE NOT!

The system is a telephone based system. Rehearsing Doomsday http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/democracy/nuclear/stories/nukes/index.html made that clear. If you want to discuss this in more detail, let's chat first.

rshowalter - 03:58pm Apr 30, 2001 EST (#2837 of 2840)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

I'd add that the systems is built and has evolved, from the beginning with a "use it or lose it" logic pushing for ease of launch. So that where the "first system you see" looks full of safeguards, there are quick ways of shortcircuiting them. And some of the usages haven't changed since the early '70's -- while a great deal else about the world has.

Don't think the system is too complicated -- the navy offers an analogy. Even on the nuclear boats, surprisingly little is done with fancy automated controls. When in doubt, things get done with hand cranks and very labor intensive manual controls -- even in reactor control. If the people are perfect -- this is the safest, most flexible way.

In auto safety, the most crucial component of the automobile is "the nut behind the wheel." The same goes for military controls.

It is surprisingly easy for small groups to launch. Or used to be. And these systems have changed slowly -- if you look at Rehearsing Doomsday a lot of the equipment looks like it could have been there in 1970. And with current vulnerabilities in telephone links, unless the entire system is an entirely isolated fossil from 1965 -- the vulnerabilites are hard to trace, and large. A large problem among them involves voice-actuated controls.

I had some personal experience last year I though connected to some things -- perhaps I misinterpreted it.

rshowalter - 04:12pm Apr 30, 2001 EST (#2838 of 2840)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Bush Discusses Missile Defense Plan With Allied Leaders by THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON -- President Bush spoke by telephone Monday with the leaders of four major U.S. allies and with NATO's chief to discuss his plan for building defenses against ballistic missiles. http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Missile-Defense.html

cookiess0 - 04:22pm Apr 30, 2001 EST (#2839 of 2840)

rshowalter - 03:17pm Apr 30, 2001 EST (#2836 of 2838)

You really have not a clue what your talking about. In addition, your not interested in learning. While your position against NMD makes you fall into my camp of support, your thinking is so off target you do more harm to the cause then good.

rshowalter - 04:45pm Apr 30, 2001 EST (#2840 of 2840)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

You're the becq I conversed with between beckq 9/25/00 9:19am ..... and rshowalt 9/25/00 5:28pm ... ? That's what you said earlier.

That would make you the same person I discussed things with, before that, as "Willy_Nilly" in Favorite Poetry (interesting name, I thought) as referred to in rshowalt 9/25/00 3:50pm ---- where I said:

" Now, we've become corrupted, attempting to justify the unjustifiable with evasive words. "Willy_Nilly) #6238, in the favorite poetry forum is an example of how facile, yet dangerous, the logical corruption of nuclear weapons can be. willy_nilly "Favorite Poetry" 9/23/00 10:43am

So we've had disagreements before.

So I'd like to know if you're referring to my posting of 03:17pm Apr 30, 2001, or something else.

How am I "off target?"

If I'm wrong for a reason you can state, I'd be interested. Thank you.

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense