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 - 07:11am Oct 23, 2003 EST (# 15452 of 15458)
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 complicated systems - there is no sensible alternative - as experience and problems accumulate - to some exception handling and some resorting and reframing.

Both Eisenhowers and Bill Casey felt that very strongly.

I was assigned to work on exception handling patterns that neither the formal intelligence apparatus, nor the private sector as it was, nor the academic community could handle - in ways that I thought then, and still think, made sense in the overall national interest - and in the interest of our capitalistic system, our political system - and the academy.

In an effort not to leak - but also to live my life - and make contributions I had a right to make - consistent with the national interest as well as my own - I have tried to "come in through the New York Times" - as Casey had instructed. It has worked well in some ways - awkwardly for others.

in 15429 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.US84b3EuQaH.4196606@.f28e622/17142 I did some summarization - and accessed some summaries - set out in threads that are exceptional from the Guardian-Observer's point of view - writing on this thread, a thread that is surely exceptional from some New York Times perspectives.

Reading

. Let Someone Else Do the Talking By ALTON FRYE http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/22/opinion/22FRYE.html

and

. Full Disclosure on Leaks By ROBERT BOOTH http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/22/opinion/22BOOT.html

Casey's instructions seemed so sensible.

After all - in a complex case - it surely makes sense to talk to people who have discretion that can be trusted - and loyalty that can be completely trusted .

I wasn't to talk to a gaggle of press people. Instead, I was to talk face to face to people fully indoctrinated in the prime censor in our press system - The New York Times. The New York Times has very longstanding and multiply articulated contacts to all government agencies - including those subject to classification - and the TIMES sets standards - long respected all over the world - about "what is fit to print" in the United States.

I was doing the opposite of leaking - and on this thread I've been doing my duty - as I understand it. With enough encouragement from The New York Times and a government contact to think that some key people might agree about much of my judgement about what my duty was.

There have been certain imperfections in the execution. It seems to me that they might be ironed out - in the interest of everybody concerned who would be willing to explain themselves to "the average reader of The New York Times." Or the average holder of any of the classes of TIMES stock.

rshow55 - 07:15am Oct 23, 2003 EST (# 15453 of 15458)
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.

Today and yesterday, there are stories of things where my special training and long efforts could assist the government. And with some minor and sensible exception handling could and should do so.

Rumsfeld Sees Need to Realign Military Fight Against Terror By THOM SHANKER

Published: October 23, 2003 http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/23/international/23RUMS.html

WASHINGTON, Oct. 22 — Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has told military commanders that the Pentagon is ill suited to combat terrorism and suggested that a new, more agile security agency may be needed to overcome the global threat.

"It is not possible to change D.o.D. fast enough to successfully fight the global war on terror," Mr. Rumsfeld said in a memo dated Oct. 16, using initials for Department of Defense. "An alternative might be to try to fashion a new institution, either within D.o.D. or elsewhere — one that seamlessly focuses the capabilities of several departments and agencies on this key problem."

A day's conference with responsible people - which could be by telephone but would be much better with face to face contact - would be useful. The AEA experience is directly relevant to the problems Rumsfeld and the nation are dealing with. I'd donate my services, for expenses and a letter - clear for administrative purposes - that I had worked for the government on the subject on which I actually consulted.

I could also be useful helping the government deal with the very important concerns set out here - and would do so on the same basis.

Baffled Occupiers, or the Missed Understandings By JOHN TIERNEY http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/22/international/middleeast/22LETT.html

The reasons why this cannot now happen are interesting - and not entirely to the credit of either the government or The New York Times.

For reasons that I think are entirely reasonable - if I am to donate my services on this limited basis - I should be contacted by the government. If what I say "is of no concern to them" - it seems right for me to keep doing what I believe is my duty.

Which is, right now, working on a demonstration of what "win-win" negotiations have to look like - in complex cases that stumped Nash.

(5 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense