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 - 05:05pm Oct 23, 2003 EST (# 15491 of 15511)
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.

jorian319 - 04:41pm Oct 23, 2003 EST (# 15485

. . .

the TIMES seems to have gotten almarst lined up for me to talk to

Uh... no. It doesn't seem so.

- - -

Look for yourself. It seems so to me - see 827,828,829 - for some context of posting before 827-829, see 9003-9011 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.R0XZbQmbQbG.4318884@.f28e622/10530 :

http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md00100s/md826_828b.htm

armel7 - 03:04pm Mar 4, 2001 EST (#827 of 828) Science/Health Forums Host

rshowalter, I admire your prolific posts, but you might want to take a breather until we get some fresh blood in here... You rhost, Michael Scott Armel

rshowalter - 03:22pm Mar 4, 2001 EST (#828 of 828) Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Yes sir !

http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md00100s/md829_833.htm

almarstel2001 - 12:17am Mar 5, 2001 EST (#829 of 836)

As I see it, the US military wants the NMD out of frustration and fear to face the situation, when its tremendous adwantage in power will be useless against anyone who posesses even a single nuclear missle capable to reach the US and who may be ready to commit suiside in case of aggression. Practically that would mean the end of American's ability to dictate and rule by force. Imagine - no more bombings of Iraq, libia, Serbia! For the country which spends about 300 bi/year - 30% of its budget on military, more then 10 next military spenders combined, this is a real nightmere. "Unfortunatly", that is going to be a reality, sooner or later. The more US will push for world's domination - the sooner. And no NMD will save it for at least the following two reasons:

1 - No NMD will ever quarantee 100% success, which will the "domination" wars too risky for US.

2 - The offensive means, capable to overcome the defence, are usually much less expensive and simpler to produce. However, the current state of affairs already caused tremendous damage to US bu showing its willingness to ignore its pledges and signed laws.

Who would trust the dishonest arrogant and brutal superpower bully run amok?

- - _

There's been a lot of discusion since.

MD1999 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.R0XZbQmbQbG.4318884@.f28e622/2484

For contributions from "stand-ins" who have taken the role of senior Russian and American officials - - a role that has continued since March 1, 2000 - see 207 http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/218

rshow55 - 05:22pm Oct 23, 2003 EST (# 15492 of 15511)
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.

Somebody might be interested in a Cast of Characters for this thread - not including Cantabb - http://www.mrshowalter.net/Cantabb_Srch_toOct_10.htm

Cast of Characters: http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.R0XZbQmbQbG.4318884@.f28e622/14978

138-9 http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.597a9376/138

If some who make references indicating that they are NYT staffers actually are - questions of abuse of power make sense to consider.

" What did he know, and when did he know it?"

and

" What did he say, and when did he say it?

are good questions - that apply to me, to Nixon, and to other people as well.

Assessing Watergate 30 Years Later By RICHARD REEVES http://www.mrshowalter.net/Assessing%20Watergate%2030%20Years%20Later.htm

Suggestion: "News and the culture of lying" is an interesting search - that links to a lot of discussions, going way back - that become particularly interesting if any of several posters on this thread are NYT reporters or corporate officers.

jorian319 - 15377 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.R0XZbQmbQbG.4318884@.f28e622/17090 . . .

I'm looking for a reasonable way that I can leave this thread without having been mangled. . . .

I don't think it's reasonable for you to be mangled. Only you know why you say what you say. You can bow out gracefully at your own whim.

- - - - - -

Some postings don't make it so easy to "bow out gracefully at my own whim."

Since well before http://www.mrshowalter.net/PutinBriefing.html I've been in a situation where it has been very hard for me to leave this thread - and it would have been for anyone in my position. The Times as an organization surely knew that.

I'd like a humanly workable, practically workable way to "bow out gracefully."

If I were an "average stockholder of the NYT" - concerned about the brand - I'd like that, too.

lchic - 05:39pm Oct 23, 2003 EST (# 15493 of 15511)
ultimately TRUTH outs : TRUTH has to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong foundation

Nash-complex ... it's right to assume that Nash's work is complex ... that's why he won the Nobel ...

(18 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense