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.

rshow55 - 09:15pm Oct 15, 2002 EST (# 4919 of 4924)
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.

Deleted from Psychwarfare, Casablanca . . . and terror:

rshowalter - 05:05pm Jul 25, 2001 GMT (#219

There have been 262 postings on The New York Times -- Science -- Missile Defense thread since July 18th, and I believe that things have gone well - and hopefully.

Dawn and I have worked hard.

Postings that may interest some of you start with this:

" I've often thought, writing on these forums, about whether I've been keeping faith with Bill Casey -- doing things that, on balance, he would have thought reasonable, and right . . .

and includes this:

" (Dawn and I) were especially interested in dialog with almarst after we read "Muddle in Moscow" http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=533129 ..... ... When we read that story, we imagined that we really were dealing with a powerful man who had taken time, with a staff, to do some listening."

MD7385 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@192.AbNqajrqU4O^142936@.f0ce57b/8167

MD7386 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@192.AbNqajrqU4O^142936@.f0ce57b/8168

MD7388 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@192.AbNqajrqU4O^142936@.f0ce57b/8170

MD7389 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@192.AbNqajrqU4O^142936@.f0ce57b/8171

MD7390 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@192.AbNqajrqU4O^142936@.f0ce57b/8172

Minds are opening to the possiblility that the US may be fallible. Outside the US, and in America, as well. I take that as a good sign, for the sake of the world, and the United States itself. . . . . . Pollution deal leaves US cold by Charles Clover in Bonn http://portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/07/24/wkyot24.xml

" Margot Wallstrom, the European environment commissioner, said: "We can go home and look our children in the eyes. Something has changed in the balance of power between the United States and the EU."

Perhaps a time is coming where it will be possible to get some key things checked.

rshow55 - 09:16pm Oct 15, 2002 EST (# 4920 of 4924)
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.

Here are MD postings 7385, 7386, 7388, 7389, 7390 - from the part of the Missile Defense thread that was deleted in March 2002.

rshowalter - 08:13pm Jul 24, 2001 EST (#7385

MD6057 rshowalter 6/26/01 7:22am

" I've often thought, writing on these forums, about whether I've been keeping faith with Bill Casey -- doing things that, on balance, he would have thought reasonable, and right, on balance, under the circumstances. So far, weighing what I've known and believed -- I've always judged that I have. I believe that now.

These days, it seems to me that, if Bill Casey was looking down, he might be smiling. For one thing, I've had a helluva time, and knowing the old pirate, that might cheer him.

But more than that, there was an admonition, an order, that he repeated again and again, when we met. If I had to come in, and things were awkward in various ways, there was one thing, Casey felt, that I had to remember. That was to "preserve infrastructure."

He was very definite about what he meant by "preserving infrastructure." He meant that it was necessary to arrange actions, messages, and pacings, so that adjustments that needed to be made could be made, without unnecessary damage to people and institutions, with people moving at their own pace - in ways that worked for the human organizations, and the sunk investments, in place.

I was told to "come in through the TIMES," and I've tried to do that, and done so making minimal waves -- just setting messages out, and letting people read them, think about them, and check them.

Has it been a waste? If only the past matters, not much but hope has been accumulated. But some things have been hopeful.

rshowalter - 08:14pm Jul 24, 2001 EST (#7386

I was glad to be able to have a one day meeting on this thread with becq on September 25, 2000 between MD266 rshowalt 9/25/00 7:32am and MD304 rshowalt 9/25/00 5:28pm . I still think the short suggestion MD266-269 rshowalt 9/25/00 7:32am makes human and practical sense, and the offer of rshowalt 9/25/00 5:28pm still stands. Did this accomplish anything? Maybe it sowed the seeds of some ideas. Anyway, I think Casey would have approved. He wouldn't have known of the internet channel, dying when he did, but he would have liked it, and approved of the usages. "Outside of channels" in some ways, but plainly "through channels" in some others.

With Dawn Riley, there was a lot of work from September to March, summarized in MD813-818 rshowalter 3/1/01 4:08pm . . . and I set out some motivating background in rshowalter "Science News Poetry" 3/1/01 11:58am . . . and rshowalter "Science News Poetry" 3/1/01 2:07pm

Perhaps after some initiative on the part of the TIMES, MD827 armel7 3/4/01 3:04pm ... there was the first of many hundreds of good posts by the person I've taken to calling this thread's "Putin - stand in" -- almarst . . . MD 829 almarstel2001 3/5/01 12:17am

(4 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense