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.

cantabb - 12:16pm Oct 16, 2003 EST (# 15165 of 15172)

rshow55 - 05:09pm Oct 14, 2003 EST (# 15015 of 15128)

From early March 2001 for a long time - I saw my role largely as facilitating conversation between gisterme and almarst - - and there was a lot of conversation. And all along - I've intended to set out clarifications –

Really ? And they needed YOU to facilitate it ? Something they couldn’t get across to each other on the forum? And for it, you needed the endless autobiographical and extraneous stuff, right ?

jorian319 - 05:11pm Oct 14, 2003 EST (# 15016 of 15128)

cantabb: The only person desperately in need of some basic learning is, am afraid, you [=rshow55]

jorian: I may not be in desperate need, but I'll take all the basic learning I can bumble upon, and thank you very much.

Please note: My comment was addressed to rshow55 – not to you !

rshow55 - 05:21pm Oct 14, 2003 EST (# 15018 of 15128)

I was asked to put the process of invention on a clearer basis - and lchic and I have done so.

Must admire the process that selected YOU for the job. Asked by? Casey-Eisenhower?

Problem is that often questions of "what's fair" have to be handled that are now not well addressed.

What’s that got to do with this Thread ?

Because some solutions are inherently large scale. Not necessarily inherently complicated - compared to a lot of other things. But inherently large scale. ……And lchic and I have taken big steps toward getting them. The barriers to these solutions now are far more social than technical.

Gobbledygook !

rshow55 - 05:28pm Oct 14, 2003 EST (# 15020 of 15128)

If I had my security problems resolved well enough so that I could really work with administrative organizations - and interested nation states - I wouldn't need anything but non-interference ( real noninterference ) from the U.S. government.

Debriefing, now, wouldn't be necessary.

Last year - I got a verbal statement that the government had " no interest " in my work. I thought that was stupid at the time - but if I had that assurance in writing - or in a way that worked in administration of real organizations - I could work.

Without that, as a practical matter, all I can do is talk.

Heard all that numerous times from you.

Take it to the appropriate Intelligence agencies. Nothing to do here.

BTW, does this mean that because of this YOU were prevented from working on things YOU said you have been working on for the past 3 years and have claimed to have accomplished a LOT, including saving thousands of lives ?

cantabb - 12:20pm Oct 16, 2003 EST (# 15166 of 15172)

lchic - 05:34pm Oct 14, 2003 EST (# 15022 of 15128)

The word 'pavement' registered on the Cantabbulator ……….

Supposed to make sense ? Perhaps like everything else that you say.

"TRUTH outs ultimately : TRUTH has to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong foundation." Hope so !

rshow55 - 06:17pm Oct 14, 2003 EST (# 15026 of 15128)

Suppose the President of the United States, or a senior UN official, or the leader of another nation state had made exactly the same request I made of Sulzberger. Could that request have been accomodated?

Why not ?

A reason why not is that we've lost some basic notions essential to a common culture - including common views of right or wrong - or duty - that are at all stable.

Ask Sulzberger (NYT) !

rshow55 - 09:31pm Oct 14, 2003 EST (# 15027 of 15128)

Today gisterme asked what it was that I'd been trying to accomplish on the board - and what perhaps we'd collectively worked to accomplish on this board - and asked some other good questions, too.

Did you tell him to jump on cantabbulator’s bandwagon ? He must have been waiting for the past 3 years to ask you this question, and waiting for a bandwagon to scramble on !

Rest of the post, the usual meaningless re-hash for the nth time.

rshow55 - 09:35pm Oct 14, 2003 EST (# 15028 of 15128)

What would "the average reader of the New York Times" want to happen here?

To see you STOP abusing the posting privilege on this forum ! Isn’t this “fair” ?

When is there an obligation to check facts to closure? Ever? or Never? If the answer is "never" - The New York Times has some problems in keeping implicit but important promises to its customers - and to a society that depends on it for credible information.

Do you “ever” feel the “obligation” to “check” YOUR own “facts”? “Never” ? What are you trying to insinuate here ?

(6 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense