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 - 11:20am Sep 5, 2003 EST (# 13525 of 13533)
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.

I respect his feelings - partially - and have some other thoughts as well.

I made a series of postings, suggesting that I thought it would be a very good thing if it were determined who gisterme is. I've no reason to change my opinion about the point. And feel like making this point again:

8273 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.WTwBbb8QDQm.7477825@.f28e622/9800

Being wrong doesn't mean being crazy. Were the patterns there to see? If the answer is yes, the pattern recognition is reasonable, based on what was known when the pattern was seen. J.M. Keynes was very clear about that in an interesting book A Treatise on Probability (I think it was Keynes' Ph.D. thesis.) 8810 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.WTwBbb8QDQm.7477825@.f28e622/10337

I think President Bush may be as good a man as Ronald Dittmore - though I'm not entirely sure about that. But Dittmore is capable of misjudgements, and mistakes, as are we all. He is not enough better than the rest of us to be trusted unconditionally.

I'd say the same of gisterme - whoever he is.

I've been looking at some reasonable patterns - subject to some guided guessing. Which, given my limitations, is all that I can do.

- -

Sometimes, it seems to me, one is entitled to be guided by the clues people are at pains to give you. Gisterme often wants a reader to think he's an important personage.

Other posters, sometimes want you to at least think about the possibility that they may be somebody - for instance, some leader. When these posts by Tony50 were posted - whoever did it wanted the reader to at least think a little about the possibility that the poster might be Blair

Tony50

65 http://politicstalk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/68

71 http://politicstalk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/75

75 http://politicstalk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/81

79 http://politicstalk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/85

83 86 88 http://politicstalk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/89

98 100 http://politicstalk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/104

103 http://politicstalk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/109

107 http://politicstalk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/113

When a poster posted under the name Willjusa - that poster wanted readers to at least think that the poster was Clinton.

- -

Not be sure, but think about it.

- -

I am sure about some of the things I feel. For instance, I think some of the stories on the front page today represent progress - especially U.S. Said to Shift Approach in Talks With North Korea By DAVID E. SANGER http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/05/international/asia/05NUKE.html

I also liked Krugman's piece very much.

- - - -

Somedays, I'm so delusional that it seems to me that progress is being made. On things that I believe are very important. And that most of that progress has nothing much to do with whether or not you "call me Ishmael" - though that question sometimes matters.

For specific reasons. Or doesn't matter - for specific reasons.

almarst2002 - 12:35pm Sep 5, 2003 EST (# 13526 of 13533)

Paying the price - http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1036204,00.html

It is also plain to all that the US proposal for new Iraq resolution proceeds from a position of weakness, not strength. The problems facing the US (and British) military forces in Iraq have been steadily worsening. The overall security situation is dire for Iraqis and occupiers alike.

But the US and Britain are locked in, manacled by chains of their own making. UN resolution 1483, passed last May, appoints the two countries as Iraq's official occupying powers. Their legal obligations, not least to provide security, are unlimited and of indefinite duration.

... The arrival of more "allies" will not suddenly mean America can start bringing its boys home. Thanks to Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld & co, they are going to be stuck there for a long time to come.

... And like it or not, Bush in his infinite wisdom has ensured, whatever anybody else does or does not do, that Iraq will remain primarily an American problem

THE PRICE FOR AMERICA IS ACTUALLY MUCH HIGHER, INCLUDING IMAGE, REPUTATION AND SHARPLY INCREASED THREAD OF TERROR. MAY BE EVEN UTITILISING THE IRAQI KNOW-HOW THIS TIME. JUST TO LET THE WASHINGTON TO DECLARE "I TOLD YOU SO".

THE PRICE FOR THE WORLD STABILITY IS IMMENSE.

BUT THE ULTIMATE PRICE WILL BE PAID BY IRAQI KIDS - NOT TO FORGET!

almarst2002 - 01:23pm Sep 5, 2003 EST (# 13527 of 13533)

<a href="/webin/WebX?14@13.WTwBbb8QDQm.7477825@.f486d37/34246">gkhng "The Struggle for Iraq" 9/5/03 1:09pm</a>

May not be up to an average WASP's understanding, but you can try.

(6 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense