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?

possumdag - 07:31pm Jun 25, 2001 EST (#6031 of 6034)
Possumdag@excite.com

OTHERNESS ... USA still haven't shaken this concept even though 'rivers of words' have flowed through the USA culture ... GI have you got a word count re the numbers of words that have had to be used to treat all members of the Human Race in the USA as just that - humans.

possumdag - 07:32pm Jun 25, 2001 EST (#6032 of 6034)
Possumdag@excite.com

Byrd describes her father's gruesome death, as well as Texas governor, George W. Bush's refusal to sign legislation strengthening laws against racially motivated attacks known in the U.S. as hate crimes. When Bush refused to back the legislation, Byrd recalls she felt "as if my father had been killed all over again."

gisterme - 07:45pm Jun 25, 2001 EST (#6033 of 6034)

gisterme 6/25/01 6:58pm

rshowalter wrote ( rshowalter 6/25/01 4:52pm ):

"What have I said that is not in the national interest?

11 words.

I'D LIKE TO HEAR AN ANSWER THAT CAN STAND THE LIGHT OF DAY."

Here's your answer to your own question, Robert. You wrote:

rshowalter 5/2/01 5:35pm

"...what ought to be crucial is setting out technical information, that can be checked, on matters like resolution, and control capabilities."

Robert, you know as well as I do that things like radar resolution and control capabilites are CLASSIFIED when it comes to defense programs. If you had that information and published it, you would have committed treason against your country. b Definately not in your country's best interest..."

"...THOSE POINTS STAND TALL IN THE LIGHT OF DAY.

9 words."

Now in your reply to that ( rshowalter 6/25/01 7:06pm ) you say:

"Interesting post -- I'll read it carefully. But at a first approximation -- it reads -- we have miracle after miracle - - output FAR beyond anything in the open literature --- FAR beyond anything technical that anyone in the open can do --- "

Why can't you read anything carefully on the first try, Robert?

"and you can't dispute it -- because we say so and its classified.

On an issue where massive fraud seems to be involved, it is certainly an interesting position."

Aren't those the same dusty, battered old arguments we heard about stealth technology, Apache helecopters, M1A1 Abrams tanks, smart bombs...etc. etc. prior to the gulf war? Yes. The very same. But golly, all that stuff worked even better than advertised. Hmmm. I have to admit, Robert that if it hadn't workded back then I would have wanted my money back and MIGHT be more inclined to believe you now. Kind of reminds me of the "little boy who cried wolf" story. Your arguement has a definate credibility problem.

"Again . . . I'll read it more carefully -- but as of now, I disagree with your interpretation of the national interest, and what can validly be classified."

Anybody with any sense regardless of their opinion about BMD can't help but see what a revelaing answer that is, Robert...that's plain and simple DENIAL! It's been pointed out before that your modus operndi includes shouting CONSPIRACY whenever the silliness of your world view is revealed. I think you have a definate credibility problem too.

Or does the US government come to Robert Showalter and ask him validate what can and can't be classified? Personally I can't think of a single situation where TREASON would be in the national interest. But, once again, I'll say, don't trust me, CHECK ...ask the FBI.

rshowalter - 07:54pm Jun 25, 2001 EST (#6034 of 6034)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

In MD6021 rshowalter 6/25/01 4:31pm . . I referenced decisions I acted on in MD1126 rshowalter 3/17/01 4:57pm

Thereafter, I wrote out passages, based mostly on the work of Stephen J. Kline, that embodied information that, given a chance, I'd most like to communicate to President Putin -- information that I also believe might be of use to President Bush. The passage is fairly long, but I believe it is clear and interesting. MD1127 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?7@184.jma7aGA2qbk^2473826@.f0ce57b/1225 ... to MD1136

and MD1143 rshowalter 3/17/01 8:03pm ... to MD1148

MD1149 rshowalter 3/17/01 9:56pm MD1150 rshowalter 3/17/01 9:57pm

I think if this information was better understood by major nation states, including the US, Russia, China, Japan, and other counties, too, we'd have a safer, more prosperous, and more entertaining world.

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense