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.

rshowalt - 05:54pm Jul 21, 2002 EST (#3225 of 3327)

Some issues of military and political credibility - including financial and political issues, need to be checked - so that we as a nation can go on on the basis of things that are true enough to be both decent and safe.

There's a good deal in this thread to check. MD3155-57 rshowalt 7/19/02 9:16am . . . There's plenty there to check - - with many, many crossreferences to all sorts of facts - and with many more checkable facts. The disk archiving this thread includes 5000 html text files (120mb of text files -- 5.7 million words.)

It would take some effort to check the facts presented -- but there are enough of these facts, connected and crosslinked clearly enough to a checkable outside world, that it should be possible to establish a lot. And rule out the "fiction hypotheis" on a number of key points.

Possible, and worth doing. I'll be arguing that the checking should be worth funding to specific people who have discretionary control of the resources that checking would take. People who care about America, care about what America does and is, and who have quite practical reasons to want right answers. I expect I'll find the support the checking needs.

Confidence needs to be founded on truth - - or eventually it leads to a confident blundering into disaster. The stakes are too high to permit this to happen. It is deeply in the national interest to have key things about the military-industrial-political complex, and the "missile defense" boondoggle in particular, checked to closure. It can be done. With economic news clearing people's eyes, there are much-improved chances that it will be done.

Maybe there are even pieces that could be made into a movie. They made a movie about Watergate -- and the issues involved here (that lchic has taken to calling "sluicegate" ) are bigger.

Patriotic americans should want right answers here.

For all kinds of reasons. Including pocketbook reasons. We're wasting a huge amount of money on crap. Losing chances, and making dangerous, ugly mistakes. Truth is safer. More profitable, too. Even in the reasonably short run.

rshowalt - 06:35pm Jul 21, 2002 EST (#3226 of 3327)

The Times can't and won't break a story that is too difficult all alone -- and for pretty good reasons. But some situations are unstable - maybe even ready to "break" -- and break into print.

What would happen if another paper, even a small one, covered what I've been saying, and this thread?

What if some European politician referred to it, and asked that things be checked?

What if somebody with a name noticed the work, and said so?

What if Putin admitted that he was Almarst , or had been feeding Almarst information?

What if some enterprising politicians and journalists started asking direct questions of Condoleeza Rice ?

You never can tell about these things. Something might happen.

Things might get checked.

Isn't it surprising how powerful the far right wing has become in America? Isn't it surprising how many problems the US is having with the rest of the world?

Perhaps, after some clarifications, not so surprising at all.

There are things that need to be faced and fixed. I feel sure that Eisenhower would have wanted that. Casey would have, too.

rshowalt - 08:22pm Jul 21, 2002 EST (#3227 of 3327)

Are things really so hard? . . Don't see how the issues involved could be more important.

MD3160 rshowalt 7/19/02 12:07pm ... MD3158 rshowalt 7/19/02 10:34am
MD2646 rshow55 6/20/02 9:38pm

kalter.rauch - 04:32am Jul 22, 2002 EST (#3228 of 3327)
Earth vs <^> <^> <^>

lchic 7/21/02 1:16am

... repetitive banalities dashed under hack-pen-name monikers:

......like "1chic" ?!?!?

Here's a New Search Engine you might be interested in trying out...it runs through Google, but provides a unique GUI which the Conspiracy-obsessed should find "useful"......this ought to "connect the dots" for you.

kalter.rauch - 04:53am Jul 22, 2002 EST (#3229 of 3327)
Earth vs <^> <^> <^>

mazza9 7/20/02 11:09pm

...on the ABL. I'm surprised that rshowalt...hasn't trotted our his silverized balloon countermeasures devices.

I wouldn't pay the slightest attention to anyone suggesting THOSE as "countermeasures". Silver reflects up to 96% of some wavelengths. But even if only the remaining 4% of weapons grade laser emission were absorbed......POOF!!!

lchic - 05:26am Jul 22, 2002 EST (#3230 of 3327)

Two posters above, the one intellectually challenging, the other intellectually challenged!

mazza9 - 11:36am Jul 22, 2002 EST (#3231 of 3327)
"Quae cum ita sunt" Caesar's Gallic Commentaries

Kalter:

Excellent engine. I looked up Louis Mazza and you know what? I am Condi Rice! Ha! Ha! Actually, I'm Oscar Hogan and I tred the Glory Road.

Two posters above, the one intellectually challenging, the other intellectually challenged!

Kalter, since we are the intellectuals, who do suppose lchic is referring to. Might it be that menage a trois RShowalter, RShow55 and Rshowalt?

LouMazza

(96 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense