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 - 06:07am Jan 28, 2002 EST (#11102 of 11114)

Quotes gathered by lchic .... MD10795 lchic 1/16/02 12:13am ... include these:

" The aim of argument, or of discussion, should not be victory, but progress." Joseph Joubert

" Everything worthwhile, everything of any value, has a price. The price is effort." Loretta Young

" It is better to look ahead and prepare than to look back and regret." Jackie Joyner-Kersee

" A problem is something you have hopes of changing. Anything else is a fact of life." C R Smith

rshow55 - 06:08am Jan 28, 2002 EST (#11103 of 11114)

I want the United States to be as strong and secure as it can possibly be, with respect to the real world, as it is, and must be. . . . . I'd be for anything that actually strengthened the United States -- in ways Americans themselves, reasonably informed, would accept.

"Enronation" does not serve the reasonable, sustainable interests of the United States.

MD10798 rshow55 1/16/02 7:31am ... MD10799 rshow55 1/16/02 7:38am
MD10800 rshow55 1/16/02 7:51am ... MD10806 rshow55 1/16/02 1:41pm
MD10807 rshow55 1/16/02 1:44pm

lchic - 07:11am Jan 28, 2002 EST (#11104 of 11114)

Interesting posts.

mazza9 - 12:04pm Jan 28, 2002 EST (#11105 of 11114)
Louis Mazza

lchic "07:11am Jan 28, 2002 EST (#11104 of 11104) Interesting posts.

And this is turning into a mutual admiration society of two. Two bad!

LouMazza

rshow55 - 01:29pm Jan 28, 2002 EST (#11106 of 11114)

Is the United States of America retreating into a fortress mentality? 22 key points. http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee9b7ef/0

Does that fortress mentality make technical sense? Does it depend on a "technical dream" about missile defense that is simply false? http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee9b7ef/84

lchic - 02:56pm Jan 28, 2002 EST (#11107 of 11114)

An 'uninteresting' post - mAzzA - didn't you have anything to contribute today? mazza9 1/28/02 12:04pm

Check this: http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=fraud : How much fraud is connected to MD - re monies put it's way?

It's just that i was checking out info re 'ethics' and did not find an ethical link to MD type activities ... seems MD must run along the 'unethical' strand in the national mindset.

rshow55 - 03:49pm Jan 28, 2002 EST (#11108 of 11114)

You have to distinguish (I remember gisterme saying this recently) between a fraud, and a mistake. That's an important distinction. Problem is that something that starts as a mistake can become a fraud. If you're responsible, and make a mistake -- it isn't fraud that you asked for support for the idea based on the mistake. But if you're responsible, know that a mistake has been made -- that something cannot work by reasonable standards, and then ask for support - - concealing information, and misleading others - - - that's fraud.

A good thing about this thread, which has gone on a long time - is that it gives people time to get adjusted to ideas - - to check things - - to make adjustments, including adjustments "behind the scenes." And I've tried to be tenacious, but also gradual. A lot of things have come out on this thread, when I've felt they needed to, that I would have much preferred to have gotten into circulation in another way - - suggested on the first day I posted here, and repeated since: rshowalt 9/25/00 5:28pm

When a mistake has been made -- or a series of mistakes - - and when there are mishaps that no one could have expected, as well -- seeing difficulties can be hard . And this thread has given people time, in a not-too-conspicuous place.

Evenutally, there is less and less reason to doubt that responsible people can see key facts. If one assumes reasonable ethics, and duty, one hopes that people then make reasonable adjustments, that protect infrastructure as one value among a number. Adjustments, that balance and serve real national needs, reasonably accounted.

Money and engineering resources wasted on programs that cannot possibly work tactically should be redeployed to serve national needs.

In ways that would serve U.S. interests -- and enhance both our security and our prestige all over the world.

If the adjustments aren't made -- questions become more and more justified.

But with right decisions, there is so much to gain - - and little to lose, if responsible people just go ahead and make them.

(6 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense