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 - 04:51pm Sep 30, 2003 EST (# 14170 of 14174)
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.

http://www.mrshowalter.net/CommendationTo_Kolata_EichwaldandNYT.htm was written Dec 16, 1999 - and reads in part:

" THE NEW YORK TIMES , and its reporters, GINA KOLATA and KURT EICHENWALD , have guided and catalyzed as close to a miracle as is likely to happen in human affairs. http://www.nytimes.com/library/financial/121699insurance-cancer.html .

. . .

"The more I think about this, the more impressive it seems. A large group of actors, each subject to separate institutional complications and interests, came together and agreed to an important, carefully crafted mutual cooperation, expensive to many involved, because it was the right thing to do.

"They did so under circumstances that were complicated in many ways , on an issue that was important, but not easily grasped or explained. They did so in clear violation of many ordinary expectations. Many different people must have worked, and worked hard, against their direct, material self interest. Many people who might have blocked progress, did not do so, though blocking the change would have been in their direct, material interest. People did what they felt was the right thing to do. By and large, these people agreed on what the right thing was. And they acted, and the action was workable.

- - -

We need to learn how to arrange more of that - and that is possible. I think this thread, muddled as it may seem - has taken useful steps in that direction. I appreciate a chance to post here.

cantabb - 05:14pm Sep 30, 2003 EST (# 14171 of 14174)

rshow55 - 04:42pm Sep 30, 2003 EST (# 14171 of 14171)

Another set of 6-7 self references ! Nothing to do with anything on-topic.

Cantabb , you're doing a fine job of showing that "you can always pick a fight" -

Nonsense ! Asking questions is NOT 'picking a fight.' [Wherever you got that idea from ? Did you ever attend or saw a science seminar or News conference? ]. And, neither is putting non-responsive, digressive 'answers' in their rightful place.

and I'm working (somewhat distracted by you) to show how to stop fights that now explode.

"[H]ow to stop fights" ? NOT the issue here. People don't have to learn from YOU "how to stop fights." Don't be ridiculous !

What you find a distraction is an attempt to focus and "converge" your thoughts on what do you think you're working on that deals with MD ? Unless you do that, whatever else you do is just a smoke screen of irrelevancies, unsubstantiated claims (re: Casey/Eisenhower/NYT/etc), and mere inanities.

Besides, here you're talking of a self described "fight" that does NOT exist and is NOT occurring -- except perhaps in your imagination!

One reason I didn't communicate some things was that I hadn't finished a key part of the job I'd been set. I hadn't met Casey's criteria for coming in through the New York Times. Casey had been clear that, before I could expect the NYT channel to function well,........ I did make an effort to come in throught the NYT - with consequences I did not anticipate, which have occupied me and others since.

ONCE again, your biographical details, your interests and promises, etc: TOTALLY IRRELEVANT HERE !

The awkwardnesses with that effort to come in may have occurred because I'd "jumped the gun" with Dirac. .........

NOT interested in your activities !

I'm going back to what I was working on.

After 2-plus years of "working on" things, you still have NOT told us, in any clear terms, what they are !

It has a lot to do with the security of the United States - and the world.

Preposterous !

Matters are like this are NEVER openly discussed: Didn't Casey tell you that ?

Report it to the relevant agencies. Don't report back: I can imagine what could have happened.

And I believe that it ought to interest "the average reader of the New York Times."

"ought to" ? Depends on what it is -- NOTHING from you for the past 2-plus years or in my exchange with you HAS been worth it !

cantabb - 05:23pm Sep 30, 2003 EST (# 14172 of 14174)

rshow55 - 04:51pm Sep 30, 2003 EST (# 14170 of 14171)

A re-post of the same thing [of 4 years ago] you had just posted!

"We need to learn how to arrange more of that - and that is possible.

Speak for yourself ! Not "we" !

I think this thread, muddled as it may seem - has taken useful steps in that direction. I appreciate a chance to post here.

"Muddled" : Mostly because of your endless ramblings on everything under the Sun, except MD !

To show how you 'appreciate' it, try posting on-topic stuff, and forget the digressions.

(2 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense