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.

manjumicha2001 - 06:01pm May 9, 2002 EST (#2128 of 2131)

Regarding Bush Jr., my problem is that he is being played and sqeezed by a foreign power and their domestic constituents like a rubber ducky in a child's pool. And it really hurts to see the president of USA being so denigrated and screwed in his own house. For starters, Sharon is demanding $10 billion payment from US in the ocurse of next several years to build the wall of seperation for Israelis (it would be another nice subsidy for Isarelies at the expense of US tax payors). He has no desire to trade land for peace, wants to expand settlements and wants to destroy PLO. Maybe that is not such a bad idea (personally I do believe Judea and Samaria belongs to Jews, period). But the point is US policy and its national interests in that part of the world is so invested in the "land-for-peace" deal that Sharon's game is dragging US into a lose-lose situation. And Bush is letting that happen with his eyes wide open while most of so-called US Congressmen, Senators, even soem of Bush's own aids are more loyal to Sharon than their own president. That just boggles my mind...

rshow55 - 06:08pm May 9, 2002 EST (#2129 of 2131)

manjumicha2001 5/9/02 12:56pm said something I appreciate . . . "Rest of your story is indeed fascinating and intriguing."

Could that statement be a step toward getting me completely unshackled ? MD2087 manjumicha2001 5/8/02 11:07am

Or at least a step toward getting my situation defined enough so I could function?

It surely would if I could get some follow up.

manjumicha2001 - 06:21pm May 9, 2002 EST (#2130 of 2131)

rshow

What specific follow-ups do you need? It seems you took some step by meeting people who you think might be helpful in getting the dialogue going with the relevant government people....after all, that seems to be an only option. Now as someone with much simpler background, I tend to think that you should just live your life as you please without worrying about what some spooks might or might not think of your work.....but it is just my humble opinion.

For example, I remember a few years ago, there was an ex-CIA guy who wrote a book about the dirty laundry of CIA and the US government. CIA lawyers crawled all over him and the book but it ended up being published anyway, albeit with a bunch of sections & paragraphs blackended over. T

rshow55 - 08:41pm May 9, 2002 EST (#2131 of 2131)

manjumicha2001 5/9/02 6:21pm ... I feel that progress is being made.

At this stage, if I could get an official response on the classification status of information known to me, that would be progress.

So far as I can see now, it would be progress, to get the official situation clarified , whatever the official position was.

Whatever the restrictions were, if I knew them, and could communicate them to others on a basis that made those other people feel safe relying on them, I could deal with them.

I do not personally believe that there is a single thing that I have ever written on this thread, or any guardian thread, that ought to be considered classified or restricted in any way.

Perhaps someone disagrees.

If so, I believe, they should say so now.

It seems to me that if the government wishes to restrict any product of my mind in any way based on national security law - they should talk to me about what the restrictions are -- and in doing so, give some consideration of circumstantial evidence, and evidence that they may have, of what Bill Casey did or did not say to me, and did or did not promise me. Or some consideration to any other records they may have.

(I say again, as I have on this thread a number of times, that in the early 1970's I was told that all records pertaining to me had been destroyed, and Bill Casey was my only contact.)

I believe that if government people won't talk to me - on a basis that can be documented - -I should be, as manjumicha2001 suggests, completely unshackled.

Sometimes, things need to be clear . The current situation is one where there are enough ambiguities that closure can't be forced. I'm looking for situations where, within the law, it is possible to check matters that ought, by rights, to be in the open literature -- and check them to closure.

How to get to that level of clarification?

manjumicha2001 5/9/02 6:21pm .. asks --

"What specific follow-ups do you need?"

Any of a number that would get the clarification. It would be wonderful if a NYT reporter with a name would talk to me. It would be nice, but not entirely necessary, for them to tell me her-his name. It would be important for him or her to make a contact or two (not necessarily high ranking) with their real name set out, on a verifiable basis.

Isn't it interesting how HARD such a request is, within the welter of restraints of our "free society?"

mrshowalter@thedawn.com
(608) 829-3657

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense