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 - 11:56am Jun 11, 2003 EST (# 12477 of 12483)
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.

Fredmoore - I sympathize with your concern that

"no one around here seems to understand WTF I am talking about"

One thing I am not mainly talking about is any particular solution, such as a Kyoto Alternative Energy Protocol (though from the procedures - solutions flow - and I've suggested some that are, as far as they go - optimal solutions of disciplined beauty according to assumptions that fit for me pretty well.)

One thing, of course, that's important to me is "getting out of jail" - selfish, I know.

But I think it is not only important, but interesting the problems that took the most perceptive (and some of the most ranking) people in the United States to a full "stump" - problems that haven't been solved yet.

My own view, distorted, no doubt - is that if the subject matter of this board isn't as important as The Pentagon Papers - and more interesting - with much more positive outcomes - it is because chances are being missed.

I've been trying to find time to type out some key things from C.P. Snow's Science and Government that Eisenhower pointed out to me, first thing - that I think the "worms with a notepad" at the NYT might understand better than they do. And leaders, too.

Made a request a while back that would still make sense - though some modifications might work, too. It isn't a "vast project" - but would get some things to clarity.

http://www.mrshowalter.net/LtToSenateStffrWSulzbergerNoteXd.html the postcard text - with one clarifying word added in parenthesis, was this:

"Dear Mr. Sulzberger:

" I need an exception to NYT policy, and feel I have to ask you, or someone you designate, for the permission. Our nuclear weapons systems and ongoing and prospective negotiations about them involve instabilities. I would like to communicate with Sam Nunn and Ted Turner's NUCLEAR THREAT INITIATIVE in ways that can work.

" I am asking that (reporter's name), or someone (s)he designates assist me in Washington over three days time -- meeting with some NTI people to discuss a presentation on stability - then spending a day helping to prepare a presentation the NTI people, as they are, can understand and use. Some explosive instabilities need to be avoided by the people who must make and maintain the relevant agreements. The system crafted needs to be workable for what it has to do, have feedback, damping, and dither in the right spots with the right magnitudes. The things that need to be checkable should be.

" I will try to pay my debts appropriately, and think perhaps I can. I feel that the TIMES staff spend more than 10% of its time on defense and offense. It should be more like 3.5%. I feel that the reduction can be done, step by step, with each step win-win.

Robert Showalter

The reporter's name is an open secret. And anyone she suggested would probably work for me. Perhaps, instead of a presentation to the NTI folks - a presentation to people on the business side of the New York Times might be a good start.

We could talk about making money as well as glory for the TIMES. And, of course, I'd want something reasonable - that would "stand the light of day" for me.

Nobody would have to be a saint - or take any big risks. If the reporters time needed to be billed for - if I had a quote - I might well be able to raise the money - if the quote was a bona fide quote, and within reason.

rshow55 - 12:04pm Jun 11, 2003 EST (# 12478 of 12483)
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.

Should have typed:

. . . "I feel that the TIMES staff spend more than 10% of its time on (internal) defense and offense. . . "

rshow55 - 01:10pm Jun 11, 2003 EST (# 12479 of 12483)
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.

9853 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.RI4TbpwPexB.475081@.f28e622/11397

There's a story of a lady, on her knees, praying about Darwin.

" Oh Lord, let it not be true .....

" But if it IS true ....

" Give us the STRENGTH to suppress it ."

If people on opposite sides of a question discuss things enough, and crossreferenced records are kept, the difference between open minded work, and "the will to supress" might be hard to hide.

Once the human point is somehow made that sane, credible people are raising a sane, credible issue, then the questions

" What would it cost to check?

and

" What gain could we get, or what loss could we avoid, by getting the right answer here? "

are questions that people can consider wisely, with both their heads and their hearts.

Some beautiful things might be possible, if people did that.

(4 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense