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?

rshowalter - 01:10pm Oct 9, 2001 EST (#10205 of 10208)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

But maybe we could have a date. I could take her to the Patent Office, for a day of real searching - - on something specific - - maybe two days. So she could learn what "impossible" means . .

and what hope means, too, in technical fields.

Just a thought. I need to read some of her stuff, and collect my courage, before I call her - - then, just my luck, she'll be unavailable.

armel7 - 01:12pm Oct 9, 2001 EST (#10206 of 10208)
Science/Health Forums Host

rshowalter -- Your list of MD-related articles contained mostly non-related pieces. You have 23 consecutives posts with no participation from other folks. Please adhere to the posting guidelines or be blocked -- or have this group just shut down.

Thanks for answering about the aliases. I was just curious about some similarities.

Your host,
Michael Scott Armel

rshowalter - 05:37pm Oct 9, 2001 EST (#10207 of 10208)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

armel7 10/9/01 1:12pm . . .

"rshowalter -- Your list of MD-related articles contained mostly non-related pieces."

Pardon my mistake. The MD-related articles, which were taken from a search of "missile defense" from the NYT search engine, and were set out in MD10178 rshowalter 10/8/01 7:42pm ... to MD10187 rshowalter 10/8/01 7:50pm ... are mostly not connected to the new Missile Defense Thread topic, which was implemented on October 2, 2001. Most or all of them, I believe, would have fit in the thread heading definitions that applied before October 2, for approximately 99.5% (995/1000ths) of the postings on this thread.

On October 2nd, about the time of MD10048 armel7 10/2/01 10:38pm, the forum header definition became this:

" 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? "

I had not adjusted my thinking as I should have done, from the criteria that applied to the thread, as defined in the headings in my records between February 18, 2001 (about MD710 rshowalter 2/18/01 4:01pm ) and October 2nd. That heading was:

" 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?"

From before September 25, when my records start, to February 18, the heading defining the thread was:

" Nazi engineer and Disney space advisor Wernher Von Braun helped give us rocket science. Today, the legacy of military aeronautics has many manifestations from SDI to advanced ballistic missiles. Now there is a controversial push for a new missile defense system. What will be the role of missile defense in the new geopolitical climate and in the new scientific era? "

It has taken me some time to adjust to the new thread definition, which rejects a lot of things that have been very much on point for the previous thread definitions, and which still, I believe, loom over the discourse.

Perhaps you can understand that it takes some time to "classify out" trains of thought that occupied so much of the discourse of the thread , and were on thread definition at the time, in the week since the thread definition has changed.

I should add that, since I've been asking for consideration of technical details on the thread pretty consistently, and strongly, over a long time, I appreciate the value that the technical focus has.

I appreciated the relevance of the prior topics, as well.

I feel that it is fair to ask: What is to become of trains of thought that fit well on this thread for the first 99.5% (995/1000ths) of its postings, but do not fit now?

rshowalter - 06:01pm Oct 9, 2001 EST (#10208 of 10208)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

MD10206 armel7 10/9/01 1:12pm included this:

"Thanks for answering about the aliases. "

My answer was that I had used no aliases, MD10175-6 rshowalter 10/8/01 2:34pm and I take your response to mean that you found no evidence of any. I'm trying to avoid doing anything underhanded at all. I know that posting under pseudonyms is standard on many forums -- but I don't do it.

Are the 23 consecutive posts recent? In a quick scan of the last 300 postings, I don't see such a string.

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense