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 - 12:05pm Jun 2, 2003 EST (# 12281 of 12283)
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.

"The http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/30/opinion/30WED3.html editorial deals with one issue - pharmocology - and neglects another, very important for practical dosage. That issue is mixing.

"With heterogeneity as great as it has to be expected to be

(See one of my favorite pictures - "Turbulent Water Jet" from Dimotakis, Lye and Papantounious, 1981, #166 in An Album of Fluid Motion assembled by Milton Van Dyke -- 1982 - a result I predicted analytically, which helped me "recruit" Steve Kline)

"- - any "knockout weapon" is going to push some people in a crowd very near death, or kill them. If "knockout weapons" are used - antidotes and treatments need to be well worked out - - and trained teams of medicos need to be right behind the soldiers.

manjumicha 10/30/02 11:58am . . are people ugly and dangerous often enough?

"Sure. But with costs as great as they are -- if we can get some key facts about the Cold War sorted out, and some frauds exposed - - we can be a lot safer - without anybody becoming a saint.

" If people looked at all the interlocking things on this thread that could be checked - - and checked some of them - - we could have a safer world - for reasons that might be selfish - but reasons that would make us safer and more decent than we are today.

If somebody with power (a leader of a nation state, maybe) wanted to get some checking done - - there's are a good many "leads" on this thread.

rshow55 - 10:28am Oct 31, 2002 EST (# 5403 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@192.3VMVaTnoVsr^791092@.f28e622/6769

If somebody with power (a leader of a nation state, maybe) wanted to get some checking done - - there's are a good many "leads" on this thread.

"The costs of checking are substantial. A private detective might not get everything on this thread "run down" for $50,000 - - though that would be a start.

"Such a start would go a long way towards focusing the odds on whether or not I'm playing "Ishmael" - or telling detailed, crosscheckable things that I are checkably true.

"Checking isn't easy, for anything complicated, where motivations for deception and reasons to doubt statements exist. But what are the costs of not checking the subject matter under discussion here?

"I believe that some trillion dollar errors are being made - and that chances for safety are being wasted in addition to the money.

- - -

To permit me to work - no checking might be necessary, at first.

I could make PowerPoint presentations - and have them checked for sensitivity. Federal Express delivery to CIA and to some well informed journalist might work for that. I'd be honored to have Phillip Taubman - who has the background and connections - and knows what "sensitive" is - do that checking - and be paid reasonably for his time (it wouldn't take much time) - if that were possible. Or have someone else with the proper background involved.

If I make a presentation to Deutsche Bank Securities - or old AEA investors - or other possibly interested parties - - I'll have little time to "discuss state secrets" - but I will have to set out my story - right or wrong - in a clear fashion. No one has to certify its veracity to let me do this - but it should be clear that the information dealt with is not reasonably classified.

- -

If there was enough interest for some interested party to hire a detective to check facts more completely - I'd be glad.

rshow55 - 01:18pm Jun 2, 2003 EST (# 12282 of 12283)
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.

To permit me to work - no checking might be necessary, at first.

I could make PowerPoint presentations - and have them checked for sensitivity.

I'll be working on the assumption that something very roughly along the lines described above can be made to work - consistent with reasonable interests involved.

http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md01000s/md1224_1230.htm Mar 21, 2001 sets out the lyrics to Ruby Tuesday and includes this:

"We are making crazy decisions, that may destroy the world, and that are very, very ugly, because we can't find the grace to be honest about some basic things that were done, and some things left undone.

"I have some similar needs myself. I made a deal, with my country, that gave me a great deal -- all I had to do, was find a way to be "Ruby Tuesday" -- there is no way. You need a past.

8827 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.FvDibasEd5R.3417032@.f28e622/10354

Of course it is necessary - inescapable that we must move into the future. And there are reasons for what has happened. But what was said and done matters - because it shapes the decisions that are possible in the future - and for reasons of justice. 'You Lied to Us" by William Safire http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/02/opinion/02SAFI.html

When complicated decisions have to be made correctly and stably - truth is our best hope.

(1 following message)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense