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 - 03:01pm Apr 21, 2002 EST (#1596 of 1609)

Mazza , I deeply appreciate the excellent, key question. I believe that redeploying the assets now spent on the MD programs, and cleaning up some related matters, would be enormously in the interest of the United States of America, and could benefit almost all of the people involved, as well.

I also believe that it would be excellent politics, both nationally and internationally.

The financial, human, and organizational resources now devoted to MD programs that can't work are precious national assets - and I think they can be redeployed in ways much more in the national interest -- ways that actually serve the defense and other interests of the United States effectively. I also believe that programs for missile defense that can work, if such programs can be found, ought to be funded. I'd like, personally, to do some work on missile guidance that might have its uses.

Mazza, I want to work hard on my answer to you. Just now, I've gotten some things ready to post that I think are relevant - - and that I'll want to refer to.

I'll post them -- it should take only a few minutes.

Then I'll recopy your MD1595 just above, and set to work answering. Thanks.

rshow55 - 03:07pm Apr 21, 2002 EST (#1597 of 1609)

I was told to go to the Science - Missile Defense forum by kate_nyt kate_nyt "Favorite Poetry (Archived)" 9/24/00 1:27pm ... and have been posting here since. My emphasis, from the beginning, has been on nuclear disarmament, with missile defense as a means to an end, and as an interesting issue. kate_nyt would have been clear about that. My objective was reduction of nuclear risk, and reduction of other risks from war.

An essential point I was working to make involved trust -- specifically, the need to accomodate distrust in stable political-military relations. I felt then, and still feel that accomodating distrust that must be expected, and accomodating it in efficient, just, and stable ways, was essential to avoid grave dangers. These were issues I discussed a good deal with Bill Casey. Almarst has dealt with the issues discussed on this thread in the same spirit I have -- working for peaceful accomodations, including nuclear ones, in a fuller context. Quite often, gisterme has, as well.

(12 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense