[F] 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?

Earliest MessagesPrevious MessagesRecent MessagesOutline (7028 previous messages)

lunarchick - 06:55am Jul 15, 2001 EST (#7029 of 7054)

! !

rshowalter - 07:07am Jul 15, 2001 EST (#7030 of 7054) Delete Message
Robert Showalter

Pentagon Officials Report Hit in Missile Defense Test By JAMES DAO

lunarchick - 07:27am Jul 15, 2001 EST (#7031 of 7054)

Do scientists have the right of free speech? (UK)
Started by TomWakeford at 07:19am Jul 6, 2001 BST

In my latest column for the Guardian On-line I describe how a new government initiative may restrict scientists ability to talk to each other about their results before peer-reviewed publication.
(,9826,507652,00.html )
In the light of all the commerical and tenure pressures on today's scientists, I want to raise the issue of whether scienitsts feel they still can say what they like. Is there increasingly an almost Stalinist conformity in the lab?


Arkady1973 - 10:30pm Jul 7, 2001 BST (#1 of 14)
They are scared of us. We are smarter, better educated and they don't understand a word of what we say to each other.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hill5 - 08:09pm Jul 8, 2001 BST (#2 of 14) It's outrageous that scientists may be forbidden to share unpublished results with each other. Many results wouldn't get published in the first place if they weren't shared and discussed at scientific conferences.

Free speech and open discussions with scientists in the same field are essential.

Scare stories and sensationalism in the press will continue with or without this Big Brother initiative.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- docrobb - 10:23am Jul 9, 2001 BST (#3 of 14) Discussion and sharing are essential parts of the research process, they also allow scientists to identify blind alleys others have trod before but didn't publish.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- picturebook - 10:31am Jul 9, 2001 BST (#4 of 14)

Scientific free speech is also repressed by the politically correct movement. I friend of mine, who is an acoustic engineer, did some research a few years ago on racial differences in the perception of sound. He found that racial adaptations (such as darker or lighter skin) also appear to be present in the auditory system. However, the research and its conclusions remain unpublished after he was advised by colleagues that by publishing the work he could be branded a racist by the media.

When scientists can no longer do work like this for fear of persecution we have a problem that is not unlike that faced by Galileo.

lunarchick - 07:38am Jul 15, 2001 EST (#7032 of 7054)

    Re post@ 07:07
    'The launch was delayed by 40 minutes as the military police cleared Greenpeace protesters who had come near the missile launch site.'
    What's to say that the missile wasn't equipt to self-detonate after a set time ?
2008: A comment re the Beijing Games was that there would be Billions of Dollars on the churn. It was said that 25% - 30% of this would go to the private pockets of corrupt members of the Government and Liberation Army.

Can a parallel be drawn re The Bwsh Administration setting loose Billions of Dollars - some of which may fall into the pockets of the corrupt.

lunarchick - 08:08am Jul 15, 2001 EST (#7033 of 7054)

Stealthly checking this on my radar :)

lunarchick - 08:29am Jul 15, 2001 EST (#7034 of 7054)

'Sir,' he added with cold fury: 'I am not starting World War Three for you!'

The significance of that Clark/Jackson exchange took on an urgent new meaning last week as the United States set itself on collision course with international opinion by announcing further tests in Alaska for its proposed National Missile Defence (NMD) umbrella that even its own officials concede would lead America into 'conflict' with the 30-year-old Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty 'within months'. .... 'Big Dog' world view - held by old Reaganites and right-wingers flapping like moths around the overheated beacon of the Bush administration - is arrogant, unilateralist and aggresive. .... let's be clear about what Bush's big new idea adds up to. It is not about a safer world. It is about a creeping doctrine of pre-emption in pursuit of remaining the Big Dog. It is the diplomacy of the Dreadnought made modern. ~,6903,522003,00.html,6903,,00.html

lunarchick - 08:47am Jul 15, 2001 EST (#7035 of 7054)

Now this guy's seen the light so why can't the little leaguer put down the remote control to work towards negotiated peace.

More Messages Unread Messages Recent Messages (19 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Cancel Subscriptions  Search  Post Message
 Email to Sysop  Your Preferences

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  / Missile Defense

Home | Site Index | Site Search | Forums | Archives | Shopping

News | Business | International | National | New York Region | NYT Front Page | Obituaries | Politics | Quick News | Sports | Science | Technology/Internet | Weather
Editorial | Op-Ed

Features | Arts | Automobiles | Books | Cartoons | Crossword | Games | Job Market | Living | Magazine | Real Estate | Travel | Week in Review

Help/Feedback | Classifieds | Services | New York Today

Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company