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 - 09:51pm Feb 11, 2002 EST (#11491 of 11502)

rshow55 2/11/02 4:40pm

"I say I'm working at my pace....

How convenient for you. You always stall, Robert..."I'm tired...I'll get to that tomorrow...". Then you "forget" about getting around to it. You do that all the time just as you seem to be doing now.

"...You've sometimes taken weeks to get back to me..."

Only once about something specific, Robert, about your crazy decal idea, when I didn't post at all for weeks because I had other things going on in my personal life that were more important than answering you. And I noticed when I did get back that you'd managed to get yourself 86'd from the board while I was gone. You really can't find anything fair to accuse me of. Can 'ya?

"...You're interested in right answers, gisterme . . "

Of course.

"...but exactly when you order them up? And at exactly your pace?..."

I'm interested in references arriving at the same pace that you make your statements, Robert, just like I do. If you'd like to check you'll notice that I seldom make any kind of a definate technical or logical statement without a reference provided at the same time. And if I'm just "supposing" or "speculating" or "expressing my feeling" or "guessing", I say so. I wish you were capable of the same.

Now what can one suppose if you make these god-like pronouncements but haven't quite got around to knowing what the references are? And if you did have references, you'd post them. I know you don't because you don't seem to have a technical enough background to know where to look or what to look for. You advertise that all the time by the things you say. That's why you want others to do the technical stuff for you.

"...We're not playing badmitton..."

You'd be losing badly if we were. :-)

"...If I'm right, on the checkable fact - - does it make any difference?

Of course it does.

"...Or would you just change the subject?..."

That's your MO, Robert, not mine. I haven't done that yet. You're the one that's always ignoring or changing the subject.

"...Perhaps I'm being unfair -..."

If you say so, mate.

"...have I been mistaking bad faith for misunderstanding?..."

No! You've been consistantly substituting bad faith for understanding. You're unbelievable, Robert. That's why I doubt anybody believes you much.

"...If so, I'm sorry..."

If you were sorry you'd start being honest.

(continued...)

gisterme - 09:55pm Feb 11, 2002 EST (#11492 of 11502)

gisterme 2/11/02 9:51pm (continued...)

rshow55 2/11/02 4:40pm

"...The question of "how do we get closure on issues that are not subjective" has been raised, and I'm working on it..."

Heh, heh. Who raised THAT question, Robert? You? The question I asked is how umpires would help in situations that are NOT OBJECTIVE. Like in a debate where one side doesn't want to deal with pesky little details like facts. That's the question that was asked. Thanks for providing the perfect and timely example of how you change the subject! You just pretend something else was said and go from there.

When someone asks you a question you can't or don't want to answer it's as if your answer is "are there any easier questions?" Then you make one up and substitute it for the original.

I'll give you credit for being consistant in that!

"...I haven't gone off to the library to get the references that show that " the angular accuracy lasing needs is much less than the level of angular accuracy needed so that optical imperfections in the laser can be ignored for the purposes of ABL..." though I feel subjectively sure that I'm correct, because of things I've heard, and my understanding of the physics..."

Thanks for the confession, Robert. Confession is good for your soul. Why didn't you just say that at first?

And why would you need to go of to the libarary when you have the ability to search the entire technical world right at your fingertips? You could have answers in minutes if you knew how. Knowing that, how could anybody think that "haven't gone off to the library yet" is anything more than another Showalter stall job?

mazza9 - 11:39pm Feb 11, 2002 EST (#11493 of 11502)
Louis Mazza

RShow55:

The sodium laser displayed in the following reference is the same pictures contained in the Scientific American article that I mentioned.

Laser Reference Beam</B?

The Adaptive Mirror Construction

ABL Different Reference links to more papers

Smore stuff, (not the cookies)

LouMazza

lchic - 05:29am Feb 12, 2002 EST (#11494 of 11502)

One notices how well American Foreign Policy is going down in Iran .. 400,000 people out for an annual picnic were less than impressed with the Bush 'Evil' speech.

Carrot v Stick

People respond better to praise than disparagement.

----

http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?50@@.ee9c561/1

Black Hawk Down .. the USA in Somalia --

The USA mucked-up in the 'real' world. The film lacks objectivity in this matter.

The USA blew up a building that contained the local leaders holding peace discussions with the UN - they really did!

The Somalais were 'less than pleased' with the Americans - they really were!

Didn't the USA just recently 'strike out' (friendly fire) the Afghan reps who were meeting to discuss peace??!!

The film BHD also omits to mention that the Pakistan UN peacekeepers 'killed' a lot of women and children via 'talibisational military strategic thinking'.

The film has the Americans rescuing themselves.

Reality check - Malaysian Soldiers rescued the US soldiers.

Wouldn't any decent American be angry to be dished up propaganda - rather than truth!? Why isn't the truth of history dipicted through film?
The book is said to be 'well researched' .. how the author will suffer watching the film .. while chomping on the royalty cheque. http://film.guardian.co.uk/Film_Page/0,4061,580133,00.html

---------

Seems OIL - as Alex said (above) has importance. And Nukes - of no value to a very real world situation.

(8 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense