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 - 10:05am Mar 16, 2003 EST (# 10064 of 10072)
Can we do a better job of finding truth? YES. Click "rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have done and worked for on this thread.

Verbal deal between M. Robert Showalter and William J. Casey for Showalter's work situation , as set out, to the what he claims is the best of his knowledge and belief, by Showalter. - - which is an EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, with details added in later postings . . . http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.t2yPa48s501.2180491@.f28e622/3445

Systems built for stability, and systems that are explosively unstable, can look much the same.

I appreciated Debuting: One Spy, Unshaken http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/23/weekinreview/23CUST.html was an interesting, but not exactly balanced, review of The Bourne Identity.

Am I trying to debut, as one spy, unshaken? Yes.

I feel some progress has been made - and some work on making clear warnings made.

. Thought problem: You're Bourne - how do you "come in" -- gracefully, and in a way that is in the reasonable interest of the United States, and decency?

. Thought problem: You're me. It seems to me that there are solutions "all over the place" if some facts can be straighted out. Graceful ones, maybe.

I've been working on this thread, and lchic has been working on this thread, for good reasons - - and motivated by strong concerns. MD1999 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.t2yPa48s501.2180491@.f28e622/2484

With current usages, nothing can be checked in the face of opposition from "authorities."

This is very dangerous. There are things to get straight, important in themselves - - and important because of the patterns that they show.

MD84 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.t2yPa48s501.2180491@.f28e622/99

D1075-1076 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.t2yPa48s501.2180491@.f28e622/1369

Links to CIA and my security problems, this thread: 3774-3779 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.t2yPa48s501.2180491@.f28e622/4753

Gisterme is right that I "scare pretty easy" - I know how vulnerable I am. Others should know that about themselves - and about the systems of trust and human interaction they depend on. That includes gisterme - and should include Prime Ministers Blair and Aznar, as well.

http://www.mrshowalter.net/sermon.html has been posted (and permitted) more than a hundred times on this thread. Like a good deal else about this thread - it is no accident. The last minute is especially worth hearing - we need judgement - not a surrender to things as unpredictable as "judgement day."

Things need to be checked.

rshow55 - 10:28am Mar 16, 2003 EST (# 10065 of 10072)
Can we do a better job of finding truth? YES. Click "rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have done and worked for on this thread.

Things need to be checked.

The definition of checking bears looking at carefully:

lchic - 07:59pm Mar 13, 2003 EST (# 9902

Showalter - I remember that the 'check-in' is for hat coat umbrella and any missiles a patron may happen to be carrying ....

wheras checking is ....

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Checking%20

... ah!

bbbuck - 11:22am Mar 16, 2003 EST (# 10066 of 10072)

to rshow55:

I thought you might enjoy this thread.

http://www.wtaworld.com/showthread.php?threadid=56847

(6 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense