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 - 05:40pm Aug 2, 2003 EST (# 13212 of 13267)
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.

When facts matter, and you are a "witness" - you'll be challenged - or even savaged.

Credibility of Witness Is Challenged in MCI Inquiry By STEPHEN LABATON http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/02/business/02PHON.html

- - - -

Though things get rough - and may get rougher than they once did - many people have the good sense to remain "agnostic" - and look for proof.

Considering the Kobe Bryant Case by Richard Cohen Saturday, August 2, 2003; Page A21 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/opinion/columns/cohenrichard

On the matter of Kobe Bryant, I am agnostic. It could be that he raped the woman who came to his hotel room or it could be that he did not. I state these possibilities with certainty because I, as opposed to so many other commentators, have no idea what happened that night behind a closed hotel-room door. . . .

The zeitgeist -- . . -- has changed. Just a few years ago, Bryant would have been dead meat. . . . . Instead, it is his accuser who's been presumed guilty -- of fabricating the charge or being unbalanced, or both. . . . But while Bryant may have been targeted for his celebrity, he also has benefited from it. He's known and liked. His accuser is unknown and increasingly disliked. She's in effect the stranger -- and no one likes strangers.

What can be proved, after all? Magruder recently said some things that may or may not be true about Nixon's connection to the Watergate break-in. People doubted Magruder - knew that what he said could not be proved. And a lot of the people involved seem to have wanted to doubt Magruder.

Not many like people who ask them to face disagreeable things - as the O. J. Simpson trial made clear. The O.J. Simpson trial also showed a good deal about how one avoids conclusions that are "beyond a reasonable doubt." One approach is "muddying the water." Another is attribution of extreme malice or insanity. Or the "softening" of points with jokes - for instance, this one, by gisterme: # 13122 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.Z9exbJU7wf8.2133216@.f28e622/14801

Fred... "No way Jose!...

Good point. I suppose whatever it is that we're doing is okay. I wonder if Showalter has somehow got somebody at the NYT convinced that I really am the President? Wouldn't that be a gas!?

More seriously, you might be right about your idea that this forum might be used as an editorial sounding board.

13123 is interesting, too.

If this thread hasn't been useful - it has been a "reasonable facsimile" of a thread that would have been useful if it had been followed. Other people know things about who has followed it that I can only guess.

But what has been said on this thread is on the record, and the times are, too.

(55 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense