New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

Russian military leaders have expressed concern about US plans for a national missile defense system. Will defense technology be limited by possibilities for a strategic imbalance? Is this just SDI all over again?

gisterme - 07:20pm Jun 29, 2001 EST (#6312 of 6319)

rshowalter 6/29/01 6:22pm

"...During Watergate, John Dean talked about the coverup as " a cancer on the Presidency..."

It seems to have been fatal to Mr. Nixon's presidency. May it RIP.

"...Could we be dealing with a larger, more serious cancer here?..."

If you think so, Robert, then why not give some evidence or at least explain why you think so rather than just asking the question? Nobody's stopping you from checking, or presenting, Robert.

"...Some basic things can be checked. Money accounting is one of the most basic things of all..."

Right, Robert. Did you check out the defense budget links I just posted or is some sinister force stopping you from checking?

http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/almanac/

continued:

gisterme - 07:22pm Jun 29, 2001 EST (#6313 of 6319)

gisterme 6/29/01 7:20pm continued:

I've been struck, looking at missile defense arguments - to see how dense the defects are -- how there seems to be nothing honest about any of it. How it seems to be one big lie after another.

At least you admit that "something" has been struck. ;-) You say that nothing seems to be honest but I notice that you don't mention what doesn't seem to be honest.

Now, it seems that the only "successful" anti ICBM tests have been done with the "warhead" broadcasting telemetry data from the global positioning satellite to the interceptor.

You and I both know that you're ASSUMING that the referenced test was of the interceptor guidance system. Obviously it was not. If you are an engineer, Robert you know good and well that many subsystems, like interceptor airframe maneuvering, terminal guidance etc. have SEPARATE tests. That's because if you try to test a lot of things at once and have a failure, it's very hard to figure out what didn't work. Especially when you don't get the thing back after the test. GPS data is not accurate enough to give a high probability of a direct hit on an object as small as a re-entry vehicle. The GPS data would probably be just a bit less accurate than what you'd get from the yet-to-be-built radar tracking system. On-board terminal guidance was probably what the test was about. Your conclusions are anti-intuitive. They reveal your lack of knowledge of how test programs work.

What a contrast to public statements !

What public statements, Robert?

This seems to be fraud - and fraud gone on so long that, once questions start getting competently asked -- there will be no defense.

Ask all the questions you want, Robert, but the apparent competency level of those you're asking so far seem about suitable for the Art Bell show...Art's show offers great entertainment accompanied by no claims of factuality; it's a perfect and appropriate soap box for conspiracy theorists (I recommend Art's show to anyone for some fun talk radio). :-) It seems more likely to me that your conclusions stem more from your own ingnorace of how step-by-step test programs work than on any evidence you may have of fraud. If that were not so, the why wouldn't you just present the evidence?

Perhaps that is the reason for the discussion about me committing "treason."

You want to go back there AGAIN? Okay...for anybody who wasn't around the first two times...

gisterme 6/26/01 3:13pm

For more follow back the links in that post. Robert, are you trying to assume the role of the victim?

And the very rapid, very accomodating retreat, once I came up with a fact, related to a whole family of other widely known facts, that every control engineer anywhere near missile defense had to know.

What rapid accomodating retreat is that, Robert? gisterme 6/29/01 7:20pm coninued:

Is that statement just wishful thinking? Seems like it; but, okay, what fact did you come up with to cause this invisible retreat? What is the family of widely known facts that you're talking about? How do you know what ANY engineer knows about any control system when you've demonstrated how litte you know yourself? I'd really like to know. You seem long on provocative conclusions but short on evidence or facts.

gisterme - 07:47pm Jun 29, 2001 EST (#6314 of 6319)

midmoon wrote ( midmoon 6/29/01 7:16pm ): "...If there had not been the Russia,the US and the UK would not lose the WWII..."

Can't disagree with any of that, midmoon. Germany would not have been able to defeat the US/UK combination even if it hadn't attacked Russia. The war would have just taken a lot longer and there would have been NOTHING left of Germany and probably not much left of France.

Hitler must have realized that he'd never be able to cross the English channel especially after the US entered the war. But defeating England was more of a tactical goal than a strategic one I think. Only the USSR offered the vast space that Hitler wanted for expansion of his reich. If Hitler HAD defeated England or the US had not enetered the war, he might also have defeated Russia. I believe Hitler must have thought that England would surrender if he could defeat Russia.

Assuming that the Pacific war had gone pretty much the same way that it did, I suspect that the Germans would have surrendered when they saw the A-bomb demonstration, or perhaps the Japanese depending on where the bombs were dropped first. but when dealing with a nut like Hitler you never can know for sure. Rationality doesn't seem to have been one of his strong points so there's no telling what he might have done. Maybe the allies would have dropped the bomb on him personally. It's all conjecture at this point.

possumdag - 10:51pm Jun 29, 2001 EST (#6315 of 6319)
Possumdag@excite.com

[ first strike ]

possumdag - 11:01pm Jun 29, 2001 EST (#6316 of 6319)
Possumdag@excite.com

GI: did you say there are audited open accounts re military expenditures? Did you have the www ref?

(3 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense