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 - 04:50pm Oct 30, 2003 EST (# 15976 of 15983)
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.

jorian http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.bc20bm2LTbH.128772@.f28e622/17689 asks about consistency.

Yes - and consistent with many other things, as well.

And there are a lot of things inconsistent with that rationale for non-response.

And "non-response" isn't quite fair. If you set this board aside, responses have looked pretty reasonable, and not badly paced, either. I wrote "the big boss" a not-too-long letter - sent it Sunday. He read it, and had his secretary call me and say so, which I appreciated. He routed it in an entirely reasonable way - got a useful letter from a senior line guy - (and the right guy, on the org chart, to talk to me) - have a couple of calls in to him - not yet returned.

With a meeting - I think things could, and should, work out just fine - and be a good illustration of what "win-win" solutions look like - and what they take.

I am not asking the NYT to vouch for anything they don't reasonably know - and I'm looking for ways I can meet my needs without stepping on NYT needs. To get that worked through - there would have to be some talking. With people able to see each other's responses - and zero in on comfortable solutions.

bluestar23 - 04:57pm Oct 30, 2003 EST (# 15977 of 15983)

Showalter:

"Wars of attrition happen when people have "positions" that, one way or another, they can't or won't ( or dare not ) concede."

I am a military historian, Showalter, and reading this nonsense of yours just shows you have no knowledge of the subject whatsoever....

rshow55 - 04:58pm Oct 30, 2003 EST (# 15978 of 15983)
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.

I think there's enough to this thread that I should be talked to.

But then, others disagree with some things I've said without any justification at all except for the thread itself.

I believe that this thread is now, and has been for a while, the largest interconnected corpus devoted to negotiation practices in the world - or at least one of very few. It includes some probably distinguished, if anonymous, posters. http://www.mrshowalter.net/Sequential.htm

I'm hopeful that the work it represents will be worthwhile - in the public interest, and from the viewpoint of The New York Times

I've done a great deal of work on this thread, with lchic , since Sept 25, 2000 - some summarized from 9003-9 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.bc20bm2LTbH.128772@.f28e622/10529

The part of this thread prior to March 1, 2002 is archived - and available at http://www.mrshowalter.net/ by number or date http://www.mrshowalter.net/calendar1.htm

I think readers may be interested in http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md8000s/md8298.htm , which summarizes practical problems as they appeared ten days before 9/11

At that time, I thought a great deal had been accomplished, and more could be. There was so much effort - on this thread and elsewhere, that hope seemed reasonable, along with plenty of concern.

The world changed with on 9/11/2000. Here's the Front Page of NYT on the Web - September 12, 2001 - http://www.mrshowalter.net/NYTWebFrontPage_9_11_02.htm

This thread was set up about Missile Defense - but it has evolved to involve more, with plenty of assistance from the NYT. This thread has been based on the "fiction" that staffed organizations were looking at it - something I've often said, something the NYT has operationally accomodated - sometimes in ways that took "going the extra mile" - and has prototyped patterns that staffed organizations could use. Sometimes I've hoped some staffs have looked at it.

I'd like a situation where the effort works well, and it is something we can all be proud of.

(5 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense