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.

lchic - 02:22pm Apr 1, 2003 EST (# 10909 of 10914)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

coherence - 2: logical and orderly and consistent relation of parts

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=coherence%20

lchic - 02:25pm Apr 1, 2003 EST (# 10910 of 10914)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Post 10907 Quote "" So lets get some coherence .... bring out the sound trucks and remember: Many hands make light work and many minds make human laser work.

~~~~~~~

I'd opt for MIND over MATTER

rshow55 - 05:35pm Apr 1, 2003 EST (# 10911 of 10914)
Can we do a better job of finding truth? YES. Click "rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have done and worked for on this thread.

We seem to be having some disagreements about facts.

I wish I thought Tony Blair had somebody looking at this thread. I'd be honored to have the opportunity to ask the PM a question. It is a simple one - one other lawyers who have actually worked in court should recognize. It is basic - and there is an enormous amount of hard-won experience about it. Lawyers, lamentably often, represent clients who lie to them, or who are delusional. Reasonable practice under these circumstances may be complicated - but some basic patterns are clear. The Prime Minister of the UK, who has worked long and hard representing Bush administration interests, faces such a problem.

. Prime Minister, if you suspect that the Bush administration is lying to you, or delusional - what should you do, in the interest of the United States - in the interest of the UK - and in your own interest?

The press has been busy - and there are many wonderful pieces. These have interested me:

. Fresh setbacks on road to Baghdad? It's all part of the plan Simon Hoggart Tuesday April 1, 2003 http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/comment/0,12956,926937,00.html

The Guardian Leader (editorial) today

. Rumsfeld's hostage http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/comment/0,12956,926906,00.html

is rather different, and more critical of Blair and the Bush administration that the one yesterday:

. No going back British troops cannot be pulled out now http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,9115,926102,00.html

Some of the things on the permanent record of this thread are worth checking - and, as almarst points out - "really scary".

10766-77 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.DDrzax2g6jx.2755407@.f28e622/12316

lchic - 08:54am Apr 1, 2003 EST (# 10890 asks:

Did anyone know the 'war plan' .... not this way ... the CNN guy (who's moved to opposing paper) seemed to know of a 'plan'!

rshow55 - 09:15am Apr 1, 2003 EST (# 10891

. The "plan" was for the US military to show that it could inflict some pain that Iraq had been planning on , and then walk in, moving just fast enough so that opposing forces could surrender to us in an orderly fashion, and so that the showers of flowers expected could happen in a photogenic fashion.

. gisterme - 06:43pm Mar 14, 2003 EST (# 9944 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.DDrzax2g6jx.2755407@.f28e622/11489

Perhaps I'm misjudging how much rank gisterme has - but it would seem to be more rank than Secretary of State Powell.

(3 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense