New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

Russian military leaders have expressed concern about US plans for a national missile defense system. Will defense technology be limited by possibilities for a strategic imbalance? Is this just SDI all over again?

rshowalter - 09:20pm Jun 14, 2001 EST (#5155 of 5173)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

The world needs to pass that word on, in ways that work, to Rummelsfeld, Bush, Enron, et al -- who are neither fit to command nor control.

lunarchick - 09:21pm Jun 14, 2001 EST (#5156 of 5173)
lunarchick@www.com

The customer focused company/political system will be an inverted 'v' as in ^ with the needs of the voter paramount.

This being so the political system has to be open and transparent ... with the hidden history sifted and understood.

rshowalter - 09:23pm Jun 14, 2001 EST (#5157 of 5173)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

We need to make peace, and solve the problems the world has.

Not make up preposterous schemes to justify the continued existence of organizations and patterns that became corrupt, long ago.

Especially with the family of the Commander in Chief taking a big commision on military contracts, according to patterns that might, perhaps, be legal, but that ought to revolt and anger reasonable people, both in the US and abroad.

gisterme - 09:25pm Jun 14, 2001 EST (#5158 of 5173)

rshowalter wrote: "...From you, especially, with all the deceptive stances YOU've taken on this thread -- that's not a reasonable response.

Huh? What deceptive stances are those, Robert? I'm not aware of any. Please enlighten me so I can clear them up.

I'm very open to being checked.

As am I. I'm asking you to check what you said above so I can check it too...because I have no way of checking otherwise. I say I've taken no deceptive stances.

My sense of nuclear risks, which could be wrong, but which has motivated considerable effort on my part, is set out in rshowalter "Science News Poetry" 3/1/01 2:07pm

rshowalter "Science News Poetry" 3/1/01 2:07pm

Let's check this...

First you state your qualifications: In a certain sense I "swim pretty well" and have a certain background.

That nails down a lot. Next upon that impressive foundation, your conclusion:

"...And I think that there's maybe a 10% chance of the world blowing up per year , with messes as they are..."

How scientific. :-) "...I think maybe...". Now there's some data you can really hang your hat on.

You're certainly entitled to think and say whatever you want Robert. I'd defend your right to do that to the point of violence if necessary; but those statements are a ridiculoulsy subjective basis for the very shakey conclusions you've drawn. I'd also defend everyone else's right to discount that out of hand as any sort of scientific statement of fact. Who but you would use that as a standard for comparison of the relative probabilities of a catastrophic nuclear accident (or attack) and a natural disaster?

By "motivated considerable effort" do you mean breaking the stuff you write daily into short lines and presenting it as poetry? If not, what do you mean by that?

rshowalter - 09:30pm Jun 14, 2001 EST (#5159 of 5173)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Let me respond in detail in the morning. It has been a long day for me.