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 - 07:58pm Oct 25, 2003 EST (# 15647 of 15658)

Conspiracy theories continued.....

lchic - 05:42pm Oct 25, 2003 EST (# 15630 of 15637)

Knowing the players ... i'd have a different theory re Coo-k/per

Really ? How well ?

rshow55 - 05:44pm Oct 25, 2003 EST (# 15631 of 15637)

Judging from kalter.rauch - 05:47am Nov 20, 2000 EST (#511 of 525) Earth vs <^> <^> <^> …..there would seem to be some connection between rauch and "Cook" - whoever he is. I had the distinct feeling that Cook wasn't who he said he was - - and when a NYT writer did show up at the University of Wisconsin - there were some awkwardnesses - and some strange correspondence, very voluminous - and technically none too completent correspondence from Patrick Gunkel - who some may remember - a poster I never believed existed. -

rshow55 - 05:46pm Oct 25, 2003 EST (# 15632 of 15637)

If the NYT as an organization participated in contacts between me, the CIA, and Cook - it could acknowledge that fact without divulging any specific sources - and without acknowledging any more government contact than it more-or-less routinely acknowledges in the newspaper.

And, IF you had imagined ALL this…… ?????

rshow55 - 05:49pm Oct 25, 2003 EST (# 15634 of 15637)

If the CIA could find no records of me - which wouldn't surprise me - there might be a great deal of extenuation all around. I had information that I felt I had to deliver face to face, after establishing some rapport. That didn't seem so difficult or unreasonable back then - or now. But it has been difficult.

rshow55 - 05:57pm Oct 25, 2003 EST (# 15635 of 15637)

rshow55 - 07:11am Oct 23, 2003 EST (# 15452 reads in part: 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………..as Casey had instructed. It has worked well in some ways - awkwardly for others.

There's a lot of support to my story - though I have no pictures of me standing beside Casey or Eisenhower - ( for the same reasons that I don't expect Mimi Beardsley to have pictures with Kennedy - though she may have them ). Whether you happen to "call me Ishmael" or happen to believe my story - I think things are worth checking - and think I've long deserved a face-to-face hearing.

"Lot of support" of your statements for your statements, by your statement ?

Face-to-face hearing: With whom ?

lchic - 05:57pm Oct 25, 2003 EST (# 15636 of 15637)

As in a face-to-face with a brain behind it and abilities attributed

“ultimately TRUTH outs : TRUTH has to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong foundation”

Let's hope so !

What “TRUTH”? Your personal brand ? Personal flavor ?

cantabb - 08:13pm Oct 25, 2003 EST (# 15648 of 15658)

rshow55 - 07:41pm Oct 25, 2003 EST (# 15643 of 15647)

My ever-loving, long-suffering wife think's I'm looking tired - so she handed me a beer and said " Knock off and eat dinner." which sounds right.

“tired” ? Guess, even the file-and-post-repost [n] machine needs a rest !

I'm knocking off and going to a movie. Maybe the thread will still be around in the morning. If not, that's OK too.

I'm behind on getting a letter to a top dog - but it doesn't seem to me to be a waste - to set out a record that underlings, who have more time than the big boss, can look at. I'm knocking off. Need a little time to recover - since Bluestar and I almost agreed about something.

“Need a little time to recover” ? Perhaps a LOT more time !

bluestar23 - 08:31pm Oct 25, 2003 EST (# 15649 of 15658)

"than the UCS, please explain why."

Like the "Bulletin of Atomic Scientists" it's long been a forum for only those scientists who share a particular political view of the world....whose overarching goal is simply the western nuclear dis-armament. Also, in the face of the then Soviet Union. for Gosh Sakes, doesn't the moniker "Concerned" instantly give away the political game they're playing ..? what on earth might they be so all-fired "concerned" about..? Well, about putting over their own view of unilateral Western disarmament, no different than dozens of "Peace" groups worldwide. The "Ban the Bomb" movement....They have this agenda..fine for them.

Citing scientists for decision-making priorities that extend far beyond the scientists' field of knowledge is questionable. With the MD, it's not just a scientific question, it's a political one, a geo-strategic one, that may be reasonably based on other priorities than yesterday's scientific knowledge in a specific area.

One can question scientists' knowledge in fields not related to their life's work, which are often highly-specialized, time-consuming research that precludes the scientist having well-informed views on history, foreign policy, current affairs. I've never seen people more clued out about the world around them than the few young Doctors I've had lengthy chats with...they spend all their lives studying Medicine and just have no time to read anything else. Scientists are probably pretty unreliable in anything other than their specialty...

(9 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense