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 - 08:51pm Nov 2, 2003 EST (# 16252 of 16302)

lchic - 08:13pm Nov 2, 2003 EST (# 16237 of 16237)

Cantabb did i say i'd been talking to Showalter for four years or did i say we were into our fourth year of talking .....

See for yourself: "I speak with Showalter on a daily basis and this is the fourth year."

How do you want me to interpret it ?

As above Cantabb --- you've issued the challenge to Showalter to do what he says and deliver the goods - so to speak.

You still have NOT quote me fully or in context !

Are the problems handed to him by Eisenhower simple or complex ... obviously complex or Ike would have solved them for himself.

Where's the evidence ?

Showalter says he has solutions to complex - inter/national stumpers ... Cantabb wants to knowm more .... William CASEY advised Showalter that 'when he had answers to come in through the New York Times' .... Showalter says HE HAS ANSWERS ....

Where's the evidence of anything you say ? Answers to what problems ? What "complex -inter/national stumpers" ?

So what's the hitch Cantabb ... if Showalter's life's work is in the true National Interest - why not ease it through rather than BLOCK it?

Where is the evidence that "Showalter's life's work is in the true National interest" ? Because Showalter says so ?

I STILL don't know what it is he has been working on; have asked him numerous times but no answer. And you, advocating his case, don't provide it either. Who am I to "ease it through" or "BLOCK it" -- ?

What you present is hearsay and generalities -- NOT verifiable evidence. Hope you know the difference !

lchic - 08:55pm Nov 2, 2003 EST (# 16253 of 16302)
ultimately TRUTH outs : TRUTH has to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong foundation

If it was 4 years complete then it would be into the 5th year ... but it's the 4th year as in 'into the' ....

lchic - 08:56pm Nov 2, 2003 EST (# 16254 of 16302)
ultimately TRUTH outs : TRUTH has to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong foundation

A posting frenzy from you guys ... means i'm on the right track ...

lchic - 08:58pm Nov 2, 2003 EST (# 16255 of 16302)
ultimately TRUTH outs : TRUTH has to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong foundation

The mix of media and forces in the recent war drew critism to the effect that ... in cantabbulator terms ... reports were dots and dashes (as in gun fire) but the reporters did not give an overview comprehensively of happenings ... and overall it wasn't that good a deal to have the journalists press up so close - so to speak.

lchic - 09:00pm Nov 2, 2003 EST (# 16256 of 16302)
ultimately TRUTH outs : TRUTH has to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong foundation

The psychological war - the cold war - was a PRINT WAR

A war of words and stories with emotions and feelings

cantabb - 09:03pm Nov 2, 2003 EST (# 16257 of 16302)

lchic - 08:55pm Nov 2, 2003 EST (# 16253 of 16254)

lchic: Cantabb did i say i'd been talking to Showalter for four years or did i say we were into our fourth year of talking .....

cantabb: See for yourself: "I speak with Showalter on a daily basis and this is the fourth year." [lchic]

lchic: If it was 4 years complete then it would be into the 5th year ... but it's the 4th year as in 'into the' ....

What's this supposed to mean ? Worse than a 'fredmoorism' !

(45 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense