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 - 10:45am Oct 27, 2002 EST (# 5304 of 5307)
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.

While I'm adressing them, I hope some people click the links gisterme has gisterme 10/27/02 12:54am , to see what is under discussion.

I never said that checking was easy. I did say that the costs of checking are often hundreds, thousands, and even millions of times less than the costs of not checking. Where those costs involve both money, and human agony - often the agony of innocent people.

Sometimes, and I think this is such a time - the cost of checking, though it might take many hours - would save many human lives per hour.

One thing one can check is the amount of effort - and the amount of connected crossreferencing, that this thread and associated threads on the Guardian show. If a staff person was interested, she might read from

307 http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/327 in Psychwarfare, Casablanca . . . and terror and others might tak particular interest in a "technical problem" of mine, that had much to do with my relationship with Casey, and the ongoing efforts I've made here.

Recalling efforts by many high status people in 2000 - efforts that have gone before, and reasons our NYT- MD thread effort was undertaken - concentrating on a new approach: http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/350

http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/352

http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/357

http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/364

http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/365

After an old posting of mine on the Guardian treads was deleted, I reposted a briefing I gave for this thread's "Putin stand-in" - almarst - - that I believe staffed organizations could read with profit now. It dealt with problems that Casey cared a lot about - that Reagan cared a lot about (Reagan wanted to get rid of the thread of nukes - and wanted that badly). Issues that I discussed at length with Steve Kline. And discusses some key things about what it is to establish facts and relations, in workable human terms, and why it matters.

Here is that reposting, in Mankind's Inhumanity to Man - as natural as human goodness? : #341-356 http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7b085/383

The authors of books cited in #355-356 http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7b085/398 would be good people to consult, on the question of how how real people can find truth, in the many linked ways people have to look for it - - and they'd know a good deal about what facts were - and how facts stand, no matter how one character or another may feel about them.

I also reposted some work from this thread last year, on facing up to the past in #357-367 http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@4.zu4na1Cv940.1@.ee7b085/401

I'll be responding to postings #5280-3 by gisterme in more specific detail. People might want to click those three postings, and look at what they say, how they say what they say, and what they link to. 5280 gisterme 10/27/02 12:54am

(3 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense