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 - 06:55pm Jan 25, 2003 EST (# 8049 of 8072)
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.

lchic:

If James Bond hadn't been so busy in Korea these past months .... rather had he been working with a nation of his choice ... and had his task been to OUST Saddam --- how might OO7 have approached this delicate matter?

First and foremost - he would have made sure that there was a real threat - and would have that clear - by direct checking - not obscure "triangulation" from a gimish of muddled sources - most or all not available for scrutiny.

With reasons to act clear - - 007 would find it easy to solve the problem with minimum force . You don't see civilians bombed - or any kind of overkill - in 007 movies.

lchic - 07:17pm Jan 25, 2003 EST (# 8050 of 8072)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Mini-mum Force .... his new leading lady!

gisterme - 09:27pm Jan 25, 2003 EST (# 8051 of 8072)

rshow55 - 10:23am Jan 25, 2003 EST (# 8030 ...)

"...A big question of fact, that may need to be answered more clearly than it has been - is who gisterme is,..."

I've said I prefer to maintain the anonymity of the moniker. This is America. It's my right to do that if I so choose. You wouldn't recognize my name anyway, Robert. I doubt that anybody but you cares anyway. I'm not to sure why you seem to care about my personal identity. It has nothing much to do with what I think or say.

"...or represents..."

I've told you before I don't represent anybody but myself. However, I don't think my points of view on most things differ much from those of the majority of sound-minded Americans. Where they don't differ, I suppose you could say I do represent all those other Americans. I've said before that I'm just a member of the silent majority who has decided to speak up. I'm certainly not a member of any organization.

"...There are now well over 1000 postings by gisterme on this thread - ..."

And over 10,000 by Showalter and lchic...

"...and if he is Bush, or close to Bush..."

I'd be honored to meet the president or be close to him; but, alas, I haven't met him and I'm not close to him.

"... - they say a good deal about how much blind faith we should put in his judgement..."

I've never asked for blind faith in my judgement, Robert. If you disagree, would you kindly point out even a single instance where I have? Don't even bother to bluster about that one, Robert I know you can't do it. A big difference between me and thee, Robert, is that I'll back up any difinitve statements that I make. If I'm spectulating, just saying what I think or expressing my opinion I say that too. You have to admit that most of what I say holds far more appeal to common sense than what you say.

On the other hand, you ask for blind faith all the time, Robert. True, you don't type the words "have faith in my judgement" but, for starters you implicitly ask for faith from readers (few as they are) that the river of rhetorical nonsense you generate has any meaning. Since it doesn't really say anything that anybody can understand that would take a lot of faith to even read it. After awhile it becomes more a matter of hope than faith to keep going. Hope that you might say something.

You ask for faith in you personally as the defense for the lack of content of your posts. Sort of like "Trust me, I'm the mutated Robert Showater. I've said it, so it follows that it must mean something"... We've been through this before, Robert. Remember the mule-skinner from "Little Big Man" and how ol' general Custer wouldn't reverse a Custer decision? It seems to me that that's the Custerish kind of pompousness you continually display on this thread. For example:

(continued)

(21 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense