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 - 03:57pm Oct 28, 2003 EST (# 15816 of 15825)

rshow55 - 02:51pm Oct 28, 2003 EST (# 15803 of 15809)

about 1900 posts ago, I made a concession to cantabb , and somehow it seems worth repeating - because a very big WHAT is how to craft win-win solutions that are in everybody's interest, but "unstable" - that is - how to stabilize them workably? Now, that's not entirely limited to missile defense - so I feel like repeating this concession

"Win-Win solutions": Another cliche that even car salesmen have stopped using.

What "concession" ? I thought you and "world asset' have been pushing the same cliche for quite sometime -- without realizing that the 'win-win' solutions are actually compromises -- both parties giving up more, and getting less than they had originally wanted. Nothing new -- even if it were to mean 'having your eat and eating it too' !

Cantabb , I think it is clear that if the monitors wanted to construe the pupose of this thread exactly according to the heading - or any of the headings this thread has carried since its beginning in May 2000 ......- about 80% of the 25000 posts that have gone onto this thread would have been barred...

So what ? Even with this conservative estimate (80% off-topic) which, as we discussed before, it tells you how extensively this Forum has been abused. Do you think anyone would have missed anything if the 80% had been "barred" ?

Including a lot of stuff that seems to interest a lot of people, cantabb - sometimes including you.

You're imagining things. A lot of people in this case may be just the amen corner (lchic & fredmoore). Not counting those who may have found your poster ID conspiracies and your personal problems of certain other "interest" too.

Since I was NOT involved either way, there was nothing that 'interested' me. What's more, I didn't even get a straight answer yet to my two simple straightforward questions [what exactly you've been doing here, and what have you accomplished vis-a-vis your claims].

Then, I'll go back and find an example that has been much discussed on this thread - though it isn't missile defense. It is a "solution" that is technically close to within reach that is a big negotiating problem - a problem of taking an "inherently unstable" solution and stabilizing it - which also means understanding what makes the solution unstable.

The"much discussed" thing here, as we already know, was not MD -- but perhaps your personal problems, conspiracy theories and all the anti-US stuff sees fit to drag in here.

Rest makes NO sense whatsoever.

Arms races are an important examples of patterns based on related instabilities.

So ? But you've not said anything specific or new yet on this either.

cantabb - 03:57pm Oct 28, 2003 EST (# 15817 of 15825)

rshow55 - 02:56pm Oct 28, 2003 EST (# 15804 of 15809)

... - hegemony has big problems - and I was assigned to find stability without hegemony - Eisenhower knew that stability problem was there.

You have NOT YET provided any evidence for this.

A lot of problems that persist for thousands of years have been solved - and this one can be, too.

Mere wishing it ain;t gonna solve anything !

As it happens - the example I'm going to use - large scale solar energy - is an example of problems with hegemony - and the need - sometimes - to have large, monolithic solutions - for technical reasons - but with fairness , too. .....You need packages of solutions that are stable. Assemblies. Not too simple to work. Or too complicated either.

NOTHING to do with MD !

On your tag-ling:

"Can we do a better job of finding truth? YES.": BUT you haven't done a thing yet on trying to find "Truth."

"Click "rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have done and worked for on this thread.": Rather, "click" to see how extensively you two have abused this thread for so long !

rshow55 - 03:59pm Oct 28, 2003 EST (# 15818 of 15825)
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.

Cantabb's 15787 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.API2bRokS8G.5389956@.f28e622/17502 contains an interesting phrase:

I don't know the "facts" of your 'case' -- NOR is it my inyterest to know your personal details! Just because lchic knows and doesn't "doubt" anything you say, it doesn't mean others have to feel the same way !

That's common ground. But there are things that the NYT knows.

There have been a lot of interesting posts since

Leaks and the Courts: There's Law, but Little Order By ADAM LIPTAK http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/05/weekinreview/05LIPT.html

If they subpoenaed Mr. Novak, for instance, a court would very likely order him to testify.

Which is not to say he would comply. Reporters ordered to reveal their sources almost never do, on the theory that they and their colleagues would have little chance of persuading other sources to trust them if they did. They generally prefer to be held in contempt of court. Reporters have spent time in jail and publishers have paid substantial fines as a consequence.

What if the issue is an unwillingness of reporters to reveal who they are?

Under circumstances where there is not "absence of malice" - and where hints are quite often dropped about who the posters are - so that they can exercise power ?

(7 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense