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.

lchic - 08:58am Jul 30, 2002 EST (#3351 of 3356)

Why do they hate us asks Bush ?

The Bush White House has decided to transform what was a temporary effort to rebut Taliban disinformation about the Afghan war into a permanent, fully staffed "Office of Global Communications" to coordinate the administration's foreign policy message and supervise America's image abroad, according to senior officials.

The office, due to be up and running by fall, will allow the White House to exert more control over what has become one of the hottest areas of government and private-sector initiatives since Sept. 11. Known as "public diplomacy," it attempts to address the question President Bush posed in his speech to Congress the week after the terrorist attacks: "Why do they hate us?"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18822-2002Jul29.html

lchic - 09:17am Jul 30, 2002 EST (#3352 of 3356)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1408-2002Jun17.html

Other performers have feared voicing their views in public lest they be accused of being unpatriotic. http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,765579,00.html

rshow55 - 09:33am Jul 30, 2002 EST (#3353 of 3356)

MD3034-3044 rshow55 7/13/02 12:36pm ...

We need, in Lincoln's memorable phrase, a rebirth of freedom.

We are much too afraid.

rshow55 - 06:26pm Jul 30, 2002 EST (#3354 of 3356)

In the last hour or so, "wrcooper" , or whoever posts by that name, was kind enough to delete this posting -- which was an interesting one. One, I feel, that is worth saving, and considering:

"wrcooper - 09:43pm Mar 12, 2002 EST (#420 of 431)

"From Michael Shermer, editor of Skeptic Magazine, writing about Martin Gardner:

"How can we tell if someone is a scientific crank? Gardner offers this advice: (1) "First and most important of these traits is that cranks work in almost total isolation from their colleagues." Cranks typically do not understand how the scientific process works--that they need to try out their ideas on colleagues, attend conferences, and publish their hypotheses in peer-reviewed journals before announcing to the world their startling discovery. Of course, when you explain this to them they say that their ideas are too radical for the conservative scientific establishment to accept. (2) "A second characteristic of the pseudo-scientist, which greatly strengthens his isolation, is a tendency toward paranoia," which manifests itself in several ways:

"INDENTED QUOTE: (1) He considers himself a genius. (2) He regards his colleagues, without exception, as ignorant blockheads. (3) He believes himself unjustly persecuted and discriminated against. The recognized societies refuse to let him lecture. The journals reject his papers and either ignore his books or assign them to "enemies" for review. It is all part of a dastardly plot. It never occurs to the crank that this opposition may be due to error in his work. (4) He has strong compulsions to focus his attacks on the greatest scientists and the best-established theories. When Newton was the outstanding name in physics, eccentric works in that science were violently anti-Newton. Today, with Einstein the father-symbol of authority, a crank theory of physics is likely to attack Einstein. (5) He often has a tendency to write in a complex jargon, in many cases making use of terms and phrases he himself has coined.

"We should keep these criteria at the forefront when we explore controversial ideas on the borderlands of science. "If the present trend continues, Gardner concludes, "we can expect a wide variety of these men, with theories yet unimaginable, to put in their appearance in the years immediately ahead. They will write impressive books, give inspiring lectures, organize exciting cults. They may achieve a following of one--or one million. In any case, it will be well for ourselves and for society if we are on our guard against them." So we still are, Martin. That is what skeptics do and in tribute for all you have done we shall continue to honor your founding command."

I'm glad wrcooper removed this, if the inference is that he may doubt that the passage fits me. I hope it doesn't.

rshow55 - 06:28pm Jul 30, 2002 EST (#3355 of 3356)

There is one very unusual problem I've been emphasizing -- I've asked to get a security difficulty - a very tough one, resolved with the government.

On June 13, after some correspondence, I had a phone contact with a representative of the CIA, who gave her name - people have it - she talked to my wife, for example (and I'm grateful that she did.) When I called CIA's main number, on June 13 and earlier, the line was picked up crisply.

Today was different. After the line rang a long time, a very junior, very scared or awkward sounding receptionist picked up the line -- and took a long time -- (minutes, as I recall) to determine that the person who I'd talked to (who gave me assurances, which I've discussed here, that " CIA has no interest in any of my material") was somehow not listed as an employee.

I think CIA is being childish, and refusing to resolve something in everybody's interest to resolve. CIA may be covert in spots, but in the aggregate it is too big to hide in every detail.

I'd like some security matters, awkward and of long standing, to be resolved far enough so that I can live my life. That means, if my work has no security constraints associated with it that should be in writing . Other issues can wait - but for me to function, this one can't.

Am I being so unreasonable? It seems to me that the government is being childish.

I have asked to have things checked. If I can get some minimum things settled, I believe that I can get that done privately.

It seems, under the circumstances (including circumstances set out in what was MD2000, but is now MD1999 rshow55 5/4/02 10:39am , a fair and moderate enough thing to ask.

(1 following message)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense