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.

bluestar23 - 07:52pm Nov 11, 2003 EST (# 17357 of 17369)

"The US actions have been extremely harmful and have caused problems: truth that has to be checked by "Loop Test" and by having kids tie their shoes."

!!!!!!

cantabb - 08:01pm Nov 11, 2003 EST (# 17358 of 17369)

It's 11 AM (Nov 12) in oz and 7 PM in Madison, WI: Do you know where your "World Asset" IS ?

rshow55 - 08:38pm Nov 11, 2003 EST (# 17359 of 17369)
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 don't feel in a hurry. This thread has had a lot of support.

There's nothing I can write, just now, any better than the extensive collection of good stuff in http://www.mrshowalter.net/Reader_Discussion_'Repress_Yourself'.htm taken from Reader Discussion: 'Repress Yourself'

I've written extensively on Slater's piece in the Science - Missile Defense forum - and feel that it is appropriate to repost that writing, with a few comments, here. People may disagree - but I hope my appreciation of Slater's wonderful piece shows through.

I'll be commenting on Natalie Angier's beautiful piece when I feel comfortable doing it.

140 posts today !

That seems enough, for a thread that nobody cares about that nobody affiliated with the NYT posts on.

140 posts today from outsiders. I admit that I'm an outsider. Here was my first post today: 17224 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.YpjQbazQXqe.0@.f28e622/18939

rshow55 - 09:12pm Nov 11, 2003 EST (# 17360 of 17369)
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.

If the "story" here 12533 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.YpjQbazQXqe.0@.f28e622/14189 - hadn't been true in key essentials - my guess is that the NYT would have found a way, one way or another, to shut this thread down long ago. http://www.mrshowalter.net/UrgeToPunishCheatsNotJustHumanButSelfless.htm

The context of that meeting hinges on many things - including things that happened in 1999 where I believe, and have reason to believe, that the NYT ought to take some responsibility.

And where it could - at no risk to itself - if it would talk to me.

What's my recourse, if we can't talk, and I'm left where I can't function at all ( and the NYT knows it ) unless I take a stand?

I need, after all, to be able to answer questions of administrators, committees, cops, investment bankers, security lawyers, and others.

- -

13698-99 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.YpjQbazQXqe.0@.f28e622/15391 summarizes some history:

From 9003 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.YpjQbazQXqe.0@.f28e622/10529 to 90012 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.YpjQbazQXqe.0@.f28e622/10539 summarizes a good deal of this thread before March 1, 2001 - and an interesting thing, to me, is how few postings I made before b Almarst came on the scene. (about 400 over 5 months )

I got more excited when Dawn Riley brought "Muddle in Moscow" http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=533129 ) to my attention.

Given what she led me to believe - "Muddle in Moscow" http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=533129 was exciting. I'd spent much of my early manhood worrying about "how to talk to the Russians" - and it seemed a Russian leader was listening hard. If there was any chance of that being right - I wanted to do my best.

So I did " a little work" with lchic http://www.mrshowalter.net/PutinBriefing.html

Back then, I was convinced that, one way or another - lchic had connections to the real skinny in journalism.

Boy, was I gullible . .

13698-99 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.YpjQbazQXqe.0@.f28e622/15391 also includes this

Unless we can anchor discourse on some agreed-upon facts - set out and reinforced according to the standards that work for human beings (that is, the standards actually needed in jury trials) there is no solution. But orderly, sharp, solid solutions to problems often do happen.

Often they are series solutions - successive approximations.

I don't have to be right all the time - and neither does anybody else - for progress to happen.

(9 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense