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.

gisterme - 12:24pm Oct 3, 2002 EST (# 4745 of 4747)

rshow55 10/3/02 9:06am

"...Some of the things gisterme said were outrageous - - big lies - - and it makes sense to deal with those things carefully..."

Okay, Robert. Please go ahead and reveal the big lies I've told. If I've said anyting untruthful I would very much like to be corrected...or does "deal with these things carefully" mean "but I won't back up the allegation".

commondata - 12:48pm Oct 3, 2002 EST (# 4746 of 4747)

gisterme 10/3/02 12:18pm

The article I took the quote from also comes with a more Republican outlook, "There is a threat," Lott told Fox. "It's real, it's here, it's now. We need to move beyond the old way of thinking."

http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/07/15/missile.test/

If there is a real threat, here and now, that the missile defense system could remove then it's from others' ballistic missiles. The negotiation of the destruction of these weapons is a moral and logical imperative. Robert is right when he says IT IS NEVER ALRIGHT TO USE NUCLEAR WEAPONS. That doesn't seem like a difficult thing to understand. The diversion of massive human resources into something more constructive will immediately benefit millions of people across the planet. That's not naive. It could be done. Carefully, in ways that Robert has outlined, if you like.

gisterme - 12:59pm Oct 3, 2002 EST (# 4747 of 4747)

rshow55 10/3/02 11:29am

"...For some purposes, it is the logic that matters - and identies don't matter. For example, the logic of the technical arguments on this thread don't change, whether you believe the story I've given of my background, or "call me Ishmael" http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/289 . But some things do depend on my background..."

How did we get from logic of technical arguements to your background again, Robfert? You NEVER present any technical arguements. You express your opinion of "can't be done" but don't back that up with anything but your feelings, sometimes accompanied by some technical-sounding nonsese. So there's no logic involved at all in your "technical" arguements...and I have to agree that you've been very consistant about that.

"...For example, the seriousness of my personal situation - the question of whether or not the U.S. government owes the AEA investors about forty million dollars -- ..."

Why would you ask that question on this forum? What does that have to do with missile defense?

"...and the question of whether I have a right to say that the United States is making serious mistakes - including technical mistakes that are wasting vast amounts of money - ..."

Who's asking that question? You make those allegations all the time; but I notice you never quite get around to saying just what the technical mistakes are that are wasting these vast amounts of money...except to say "well, all this money is being spent on something that just can't be done".

"...and making the world far more dangerous than it has to be..."

Nice conclusion, Robert...but what does that mean in any measurable terms?

As for your "message to the government" well, you've said what you have to say. If what you say is true then all the planes, ships and missiles will be replaced by something even more terrible. Personally I believe I'll think of you as "Ishie" from now on.

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense