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.

wrcooper - 12:35am Sep 12, 2003 EST (# 13619 of 13624)

gisterme

Well, he still won't believe you. You're being a VIP is necessary to maintaining his egotistical fantasy. I understand perfectly why you won't go any farther in revealing personal information to Showalter. That's a sensible precaution. I wasn't so sensible, but I actually am glad now I did meet with him. As I've said, he struck me as a much saner person in person than he does on the board. Go figure.

Anyway, you're leaving his fantasy intact, I'm afraid. He'll say something like, "I don't know if gisterme is Bush or closely connected with Bush, but there is reason enough to suspect he may be, and it should be checked." We're right back at square one.

Showalter

I've got an idea. Email some people at the CIA and the Pentagon and tell them all about the "Missile Defense" board and send them samples of your posts. Ask them to stop by and monitor it. Tell them to use a special moniker, say, IndiaAlphaMike1 or something. Then you'd know, because you had given them the secret handshake to identify themselves. If they bit, that would indeed be gratifying for you.

Well, this has been fun, kids. But it's farther out than Pluto. Cuckoo Cachoo.

gisterme - 12:57am Sep 12, 2003 EST (# 13620 of 13624)

"...As I've said, he [Showalter] struck me as a much saner person in person than he does on the board. Go figure..."

I'm sincerely glad to hear that, Will. I do respect your opinion.

You fear that I'm leaving Bob's fantasy intact...perhaps I am. However, I don't think there's much I could to to destroy it. After all, Robert is free to deny whatever he wants in order to "maintain the chain". He's more of a "chain maintainer" than a "chain breaker".

I think I'm out too.

wrcooper - 09:22am Sep 12, 2003 EST (# 13621 of 13624)

gisterme,

You wrote:

I think I'm out too.

Good move. See ya in the other forums.

rshow55 - 10:06am Sep 12, 2003 EST (# 13622 of 13624)
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.

Gisterme: " He's more of a "chain maintainer" than a "chain breaker". "

That's intended.

Chain breakers http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee79f4e/618

Explosives aren't funny, but they're funny things Fizzles so easy -- slow burns so easy then BANG ! - if things happen to be right try to stop the detonation when it comes.

. . . .

When everything's right, chains branch. nothing stops them, shock wave builds Bango!

Just a different activation event, and chains may break, and if enough break just a fizzle.

If fewer break, but the shock wave never builds, you have a deflagration - a slow burn, that you could warm coffee with, if you wanted to get that close, and could stand the fumes.

- - - -

" The long and the short of it is - you need both long and short. From the long, quite often, the short condenses."

I believe that some useful condensations have occurred on the NYT Missile Defense thread, and that more will.

Including some simple exemplars that lchic and I have worked to focus - that might be usefully taught to four or five year olds. Kids and their parents might be better if they learned one of lchic's poems http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.neAWbQoBFlB.8684444@.f28e622/3745 . And in a little while, that poem might be learned with a small addition http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.neAWbQoBFlB.8684444@.f28e622/3784 .

(2 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense