[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 (7617 previous messages)

rshowalter - 05:36pm Jul 30, 2001 EST (#7618 of 7771) Delete Message
Robert Showalter

The stuff being sold to Congress and the American people is full of gross overclaims -- false advertising -- and has almost no chance of working in any meaningful military sense.

In addition, the costs of the program, both in money, and in diplomatic relations, are already known to be very high - in both respects, higher than had been anticipated.

Why is the administration spending so much of its credibility on the program?

The only reason I can see, that makes sense, is to conceal some longstanding and continuing crimes, and to find a justification for large expenditures that the public might be talked into buying.

rshowalter - 05:44pm Jul 30, 2001 EST (#7619 of 7771) Delete Message
Robert Showalter

But there are big stakes in the program, beyond the huge amount of money that would be spend on it.

Considering the lies and frauds and overclaims that have been going on for a long time, and continue -- what would it cost

. Boeing

. Lockheed-Martin


. Raytheon

and the United States Air Force in credibility to have the situation understood?

Maybe the only way to keep the crime from being discoved is to continue it.

Take away missile defense, and how much credibility would the contractors have left?

How many voters care about the F/A-18E Figher, the F22 Figher, the Joint Strike Fighter, the C-17 transport, The Commanche and Osprey Helicopters, and the NSNN attack submarines?

Very few. Take away NMD, and the military-industrial complex is holding a very empty bag.

And NMD is a fraud, in many too many ways to be considered an "honest mistake.

derek2600 - 05:50pm Jul 30, 2001 EST (#7620 of 7771)

The Disclosure Project Dear Readers,

In your opinion, what is the cause of the NY Times' failure to report on The Disclosure Project? As a congressional staffer myself, I was rather surprised. The group held a highly successful press conference here in DC on May 9th, 2001, and even though I'm pretty sure the newspaper had reporters present (along with reporters from all over the world) it made no mention of the conference at all. ABC News, as well as several other newspapers, did a much better job of covering the event.

In my view, any organization with over 400 eye-witnesses from high-ranking positions in government, military, intelligence, and industry should at least be given a chance to be heard. With all of Dr. Steven Greer's documented testimony (members of the scientific community included), we should take an active role in exploring the possibilities of zero point energy and advanced propulsion research, vitally important to the world's environment at this time. This technology could very well be the answer to the perceived "energy crisis," providing our industry with a totally renewable source of clean, environment-friendly energy. Those who dismiss this testimony without at least examining the evidence are the intellectual equivalents of those who said the Wright brothers would never fly. I believe true innovation begins with brave ideas like those expressed by Dr. Steven Greer and his witnesses, and individuals should not be afraid to investigate the evidence for themselves. We should all begin writing our representatives. Please visit their web page at and at least watch the video of the press conference (you can stream it for free over Real Player). You can also FAX your congressional reps. for free through the web page, in order to give them a public mandate for further investigation. Consider the possibilities ... There is no logical, scientific reason why this couldn't be true.

This issue is of vital importance to mankind at this juncture. Any journalist willing to take up serious coverage of this subject could very well be researching the most important scientific phenomena of our time. In the meantime, Dr. Greer has begun a national campaign and the project has been gaining international attention. He has been briefing members of Congress and other VIPs, calling for congressional hearings. As someone who approached this with a somewhat skeptical, yet still objective mindset, my doubts were alleviated after closer scrutiny. They really have a compelling case. As such a "reputable" paper, this omission in the Times' coverage is rather strange.


Derek Garcia

gisterme - 06:49pm Jul 30, 2001 EST (#7621 of 7771)

rshowalter wrote ( rshowalter 7/30/01 5:44pm ): And NMD is a fraud, in many too many ways to be considered an "honest mistake".

Your opinon, Robert; but you've been way slim in the evidence presentation department...lots of words but with nothing much to back them up. My opinion is that the BMD will work just fine for its intended limited scope of performance. There's a lot more evidence that BMD will work than there is that it can't; but, don't let little details like the facts get in your way. :-) Why do you think your opinion should carry any more weight than my opinion? Perhaps you've had a message from God?

More Messages Unread Messages Recent Messages (150 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