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 - 08:47am Apr 1, 2003 EST (# 10889 of 10893)
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.

Correction"

We now live in a world with much more interconnection than people are used to. There are new opportunities - and we have to learn to use them.

I'm sorry for the mistake.

But glad I can't delete - that this thread is now set up as a permanent record.

Some of the things on this permanent record are worth checking - and, as almarst points out - "really scary".

10766-77 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.FzpDaOFw6gq.2667154@.f28e622/12316

We need to face these things - and do better.

There's plenty of room for improvement.

lchic - 08:54am Apr 1, 2003 EST (# 10890 of 10893)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Did anyone know the 'war plan' .... not this way ... the CNN guy (who's moved to opposing paper) seemed to know of a 'plan'!

rshow55 - 09:15am Apr 1, 2003 EST (# 10891 of 10893)
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.

The "plan" was for the US military to show that it could inflict some pain that Iraq had been planning on , and then walk in, moving just fast enough so that opposing forces could surrender to us in an orderly fashion, and so that the showers of flowers expected could happen in a photogenic fashion.

gisterme - 06:43pm Mar 14, 2003 EST (# 9944 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.FzpDaOFw6gq.2667154@.f28e622/11489

rshow55 - 09:18am Apr 1, 2003 EST (# 10892 of 10893)
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.

The stock market took a big hit yesterday, and people who care about the stock market might find 10421 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.FzpDaOFw6gq.2667154@.f28e622/11970 worth another look.

Think about how big a 1% change in valuation is. Roughy 100 billion dollars.

Judgement matters a great deal - and people who care about the market ought to INSIST that some key things get checked. Mistakes are expensive. We don't have to make so many.

INTERACTIVE GRAPHIC The Incredible Shrinking Stock Market More Than $7 Trillion Gone By SETH W. FEASTER http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/21/weekinreview/20020721_MARKET_GRAPHIC.html

"What follows are various ways of looking at the market's continuing contraction. Here's a beautiful technique -- graphs under graphs:

Click on the graph in Feaster's graphic, and there are more wonderful, enlightening graphs:

Market Value: 17.25 Trillion - March 24, 2000 http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/weekinreview/20020721_MARKET/nwr_MARKET_01.html

. Market Value: 10.03 Trillion - July 18, 2002

. Market Structure

- - - - - -

For entirely fiduciary reasons, securities people ought to ask that many key things be checked. If the key assertions about fact on this thread were actually checked to closure - and it would take force for it to happen - a lot would sort out for the better.

almarst2003 - 11:57am Mar 24, 2003 EST (# 10422 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.FzpDaOFw6gq.2667154@.f28e622/11971 raises concerns that ought to be much beyond money, but that are matters of dollars and cents in America, too. And honor.

For what little it may be worth - I think things are going well, considering, and that a good deal of disciplined optimism is called for. Mixed with some seriousness - there are problems before us that we can solve. Unless we face them, we will all lose a lot - and not just in market values.

(1 following message)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense