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 - 02:06am Jan 10, 2003 EST (# 7547 of 7557)

commondata 1/9/03 7:16am

"...Thanks for waiting 5 years until Pearl Harbor was bombed,..."

The US administration was befuddled by isolatinists, anti-war folks and Nazi sympathizers (like Joseph Kennedy) until the Pearl Harbor attack. Thank those all-wise anti-war folks for that, commondata.

"...thanks for nuking Japan..."

You're welcome. It could have been Germany. It did spare the spilling of the blood of about 400,000 Americans and probably millions of Japanese that would have surely been spilt if an invasion of the Japanese home islands had been necessry to end that war. Also important was that "nuking Japan" rendered nuclear weapons obsolete.

Was 80 bucks so little in 1945, commondata? I don't think so. Compare the value of 1945 dollars to 2003 dollars if you think so. I'm not sure of the statistics, commondata, but I think the average American income in 1945 was less than $2,000 per year. For each American to fork over 80 bucks in those days was a significant sacrefice.

Sunshine is better than starless darkness, commondata. It's not hard to find. Just pull your head out of where it currently is and you'll soon see some.

gisterme - 02:13am Jan 10, 2003 EST (# 7548 of 7557)

rshow55 1/9/03 8:41am

"...For instance, arguments from design - and arguments from evolution - applied in stages - successively - can "explain" much better than either kind of argument could without the other..."

Unless, of course, the arguements from both sides are wrong.

lunarchick - 02:32am Jan 10, 2003 EST (# 7549 of 7557)

Showalter's advocating the dovetailing of synergy.

lunarchick - 02:52am Jan 10, 2003 EST (# 7550 of 7557)

So Gisterme had 'anger' last time he posted-me .. and i failed to notice ... anger's something that just rebound back on self. Why would anyone get annoyed at my pointing out a the odd inadequacy of old uncle Sam?

So Americans had 'stars' not just in their eyes, but windows also, back in the Forties. Europe had 'black-outs' draped over theirs ... killing all light, so aircraft didn't bomb their city. Today the missiles are monogrammed.

Did you notice you said you were 'at war' Gisterme .. trust that's not with me :)

gisterme - 03:07am Jan 10, 2003 EST (# 7551 of 7557)

Robert, a while back I claimed that you Wibble Wobble, dither, vascillate and try to maintain flexibility so much that your statements become entirey spineless. Here are two consecutive examples that confrim exactly what I said.

rshow55 1/9/03 9:08am

"...Though I don't know how exactly, except I think I do, sometimes..."

Are you sure, Robert??? :-)

"...I think I know a lot that could be done better, generally, though maybe not..."

Are you hanging your hat on that one too?

See what I mean, Robert? I have no doubt that everybody else who reads those statements and has any common sense does. That's because those are self-erasing statements. I'd estimate that 80-90% of all the statements you make are similar in their self-erasing quality. That's why most of what you write never gets responded to. You erase it yourself before anybody can respond!

So far as I can tell, from all the thousands of posts you've made about all you've said that didn't erase itself is:

1. Sometimes fights are unavoidable.

That's true.

2. Things could be done better.

That's true.

3. The world needs omnipotent incorruptible super-human umpires that can tell evil dictators to stop what they're doing and make it stick.

That's impossible.

4. Don't worry, there's plenty of time.

That's unknowable.

5. Missile defense is a boondoggle.

That's your unsubstantiated opinion.

6. Gisterme is some high official in the Bush administration.

That's not true.

7. All your troubles would go away if people on web forums would use their own names.

That's nonsense.

8. You can't do what you want and it's all the CIA's fault.

That's absurd.

9. The US government should send you money.

That would be nobody else's business, even if it were true.

10. We should turn to Hollywood movies as a resource for understanding reality.

That's abusrd.

Did I miss any?

All the rest seems a huge word-salad of self-erasing comments and Showalter-ego stroking platitudes.

(6 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense