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.

jorian319 - 01:27pm May 29, 2003 EST (# 12158 of 12160)

Wow, almarst - you are elevating "grasping at straws to an artform. From your last link:

An unidentified expert in Britain's intelligence network told the BBC the 50-page document contained unreliable information...

Sounds reliable to me! (NOT!)

"The classic example," the BBC quoted the intelligence officer as saying, "was the statement that weapons of mass destruction were ready for use (by Iraq) within 45 minutes."

Yeah - an hour an a half would make all the difference! (NOT!)

The claim came in the wake of U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's comment that Saddam's regime might have destroyed its chemical and biological weapons before the fighting began...

So, if the fighting were not about to begin, would we be safer today? (NOT!)

The intelligence officer interviewed by the BBC conceded that "most things in the dossier were double sourced, but that (claim about Iraq's ability to launch weapons of mass destruction on 45 minutes' notice) was single source, and we believe that the source was wrong."

What a travesty! For all we know it could have been THREE HOURS!!!

Blair ... said earlier that "rather than speculating (about the weapons of mass destruction), let's just wait until we get the full report back from our people who are interviewing the Iraqi scientists."

No, let's fly off the handle because of that OUTRAGEOUS 45 minute statement. (NOT!)

The BBC's intelligence ... suggested that U.N. weapons inspectors themselves may have understated some of the evidence.

NO! Say it ain't so, almarst! Your own link undermining your position!!!!

jorian319 - 01:31pm May 29, 2003 EST (# 12159 of 12160)

IS TRUTH IMPORTANT? Not to almarst!

rshow55 - 01:56pm May 29, 2003 EST (# 12160 of 12160)
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.

Truth is important. It always has been. Almarst can be wrong - but he maintains pretty high standards of honesty and decency, compared to jorian. Almarst's http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.10JGb81Cbi3.2566939@.f28e622/13794 was an important post.

Truth matters because life is complicated and full of pitfalls - and the success of decisions on which our practical and moral life depends are determined mostly by the quality of the facts and ideas behind those decisions.

So lies and misunderstandings destroy hope, and are dangerous. Psychological warfare - organized deception - is a kind of warfare.

We live in a world now where many things are dangerously unstable - and institutions are failing in ways where they have worked well in the past. Some of them vital.

There are some new opportunities, too.

- - -

almarst , a lot of your concern and anger are very justified. And intentional deception and conspiracies - some in which even "good people" and "good organizations" have become more-or-less complicit - are real causes for concern and alarm.

I'm doing the best I know how to, subject to the limitations I have, as I understand them. It can be "easier to get forgiveness than it is to get permission" - but for some patterns to work - especially when complex cooperation of vulnerable people and organizations is involved - you need workable permission in the senses that matter to the people and organizations involved.

10437 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.10JGb81Cbi3.2566939@.f28e622/11986

12070 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.10JGb81Cbi3.2566939@.f28e622/13695 includes this:

I'm wondering about the legalities of what ought to be a very simple question. Could I talk to - make presentations to - work with Deutshe Bank Securities (a very well placed organization, from my point of view) or talk to other organizations - or people in the United Nations - if the US won't work with me?

"After a while, when you work in ways where "it is easier to get forgiveness than it is to get permission" - and go on a long way, for a long time you have permission.

"I'm not quite there

According to the indirect standards of this board, jorian's 12072 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.10JGb81Cbi3.2566939@.f28e622/13697 was a major statement of concern - I'm glad you responded to it within minutes - and bbbuck's 12072 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.10JGb81Cbi3.2566939@.f28e622/13703 was a rather crude threat.

12073 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.10JGb81Cbi3.2566939@.f28e622/13704 makes an obvious point. If the NYT can be physically intimidated - or if it turns away from the truth - and the responsibility to check the truth - it is importantly diminished.

For things to go better - standards of checking have to go up - and go up substantially. And for that to happen - with individuals and organizations as scared and complicit as they so often are - some help from people in other nation states may be needed. If leaders of nation states actually want to shift the world to a higher level of reliability - something safety, decency and proseperity depend on - standards of checking, on issues that matter - have to be higher than they are.

I'm doing as much as I know how, and dare - and so is lchic.

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense