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 - 05:09pm Aug 9, 2003 EST (# 13276 of 13280)
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.

In an artificial but entertaining movie, Blast From the Past (1999) http://www.newline.com/sites/blastpast/ there's an interesting scene.

http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.GMoQb7bDxyz.0@.f28e622/13463

When Casey told me to "come in through the New York Times" - he thought that that might be my only chance. But he also thought it an entirely reasonable suggestion - and so did I. Communication would be established, and I'd be passed, on a confidential basis, to people in the governement who would act in good faith on a matter where, we both felt, almost everybody involved had reasonable reason to be proud. We both took it for granted that people at the TIMES had very good connections, both directly and indirectly, with the United States security apparatus at all levels.

I've never had any reason to doubt that. For instance:

The Times Names a New Chief of Its Bureau in Washington By DAVID CARR http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/07/business/media/07PAPE.html

"Philip Taubman, the deputy editor of the editorial page at The New York Times, has been named the newspaper's Washington bureau chief.

. . .

"Mr. Taubman, a 1971 graduate of Stanford University, is the author of " Secret Empire: Eisenhower, the C.I.A. and the Hidden Story of America's Space Espionage, " which was published this year by Simon & Schuster.

http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md8000s/md8393.htm

- - -

At the same time, and surprisingly, both Casey (who had been Reagan's campaign chairman) and I were naive in some significant ways. Particularly about paradigm conflict - and the ability of people to rationalize - and dehumanize.

Maybe we were facing a "simply impossible" situation. But it didn't seem so to us.

Or to me.

- - -

Eisenhower taught me something about negotiation - and maybe I've misunderstood or misused it. When he had clear technical objectives, that could not be compromised - he took his time, and made no essential compromises whatsoever. So far, I haven't either.

Eisenhower didn't quote Menken to me - but he did have essential reservations about politics, for reasons not unlike those Menken talks about:

In order to get anywhere near high office (a politician) has to make so many compromises . . . . ."

For some clear technical purposes - at the level of technical logic - it isn't necessary, or even tolerable, to make any compromises at all - except those of a clear technical nature, with clear scorekeeping.

I was given a very special education - specializing in that sort of technical logic - because on some key issues on which national security and prosperity depended it was necessary to "be sure you're right" - - on key technical issues before "going ahead" with the politics.

(4 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense