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 - 05:17pm Nov 6, 2003 EST (# 16673 of 16678)

rshow55 - 04:50pm Nov 6, 2003 EST (# 16669 of 16669)

And with no choice but to do so.

You mean "leaving gracefully"?

People who are held down fight back. And for very good and unchangeable reasons.

Who's holding you "down" ? You've NOT identified anyone or any agency yet, despite numerous reminders. Hard now to take you seriously -- credibility problem !

Even if you were, one would expected that with your close affiliation with IKE and Casey and CIA, and the high opinion they had of you -- enough to entrust you with national security matters no one else handle -- you'd have shattered the restrictions on you and trampled on those wqho were trying to keep you down.

" All the news that's fit to print." If you guys are making that decision - and a test of your judgement is your postings on this thread - there need to be some changes.

Your inner demons driving you. You don't seem to be in any position to demand or expect any "changes" in NYT's or any other posters' stance.

jorian319 - 05:18pm Nov 6, 2003 EST (# 16674 of 16678)

Other people might make different judgements than yours

I try to keep an open mind, so praytell - what other conclusions are even possible, let alone likely?

rshow55 - 05:27pm Nov 6, 2003 EST (# 16675 of 16678)
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 , you're saying it isn't possible - isn't reasonable, to think that you work for The New York Times? That is isn't reasonable, or even possible, that bluestar23 and cantabb work for The New York Times?

We're at a point where, to keep the old "culture of lying" together, it has to be possible to say

. NO FAIR connecting those dots in interconnected ways - and keeping at it enough for focus !

The nature of that fight - which is an essential fight in our time - is getting clearer. The fight is being clarified, and fought, on this thread.

It is a fight worth fighting - and involves issues that don't depend on whether you "call me Ishmael" or not.

jorian319 - 05:40pm Nov 6, 2003 EST (# 16676 of 16678)

"...what other conclusions are even possible, let alone likely? "

you're saying it isn't possible - isn't reasonable, to think that you work for The New York Times?

Search your soul, Robert. Ask yourself, honestly - is that what I'm saying?

Hopefully, your mind will return the correct answer: "NO that's NOT what jorian319 was saying. He was saying that "guessing that cantabb and/or Bluestar are affiliated with NYT strikes him as specious, unreasonable and irresponsible.

...and...

Either