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 - 02:26pm Apr 10, 2002 EST (#1236 of 1241)

Nice to see your response, gisterme . Now, within the framework of these boards, some fictions sometimes occur. But as for "rejecting checking" -- could you give me some examples?

Something to remember. In a logical framework -- some things are not dependent on some others.

For example, you could take either interpretation I offer in 273 http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?13@@.ee7a163/289 . . . and nothing referenced in MD14 rshow55 3/1/02 6:07pm or MD84 rshow55 3/2/02 10:52am changes. Nothing involved in MD1076 rshow55 4/4/02 12:20pm changes either.

Indeed, if you go back on this thread -- especially the part before March -- and look at your words - and other doings -- you can show a very clear case that, on almost everything that matters - - you and the administration you represent have been dishonest and worse, many times.

And where have I rejected checking - exactly?

rshow55 - 02:38pm Apr 10, 2002 EST (#1237 of 1241)

I was preparing this before gisterme posted, and think it remains pertinent.

mazza9 4/10/02 12:06pm

Tom Hanks is a great man ! Thanks for the suggestion. The theatrical-literary-movie person I've been thinking of most, for an inital pitch, has been A.E. Hotchner, Paul Newman's partner and Newman's Own tycoon.

There are a number of things I might like to suggest putting together, and thinking about as movies. One is a project for solar energy. Another is a project for picking a fight, and taking the missile defense boondoggle-fiasco apart, after the manner discussed on this thread, for instance in MD1076 rshow55 4/4/02 12:20pm

There would be a good chance of putting something together, I think, if I could get past some conditions.

1. if I felt safe walking the streets as a free actor;

2. if the people involved felt safe dealing with me;

and

2. if a nation state was involved.

This reference tells a true story - - and some of the circumstances that raise "difficulties" still pertain, and have even been reinforced in the meantime. http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7b085/193

This, for example, is not a rejection of checking: Background MD1152 rshow55 4/6/02 4:47pm

On missile defense, and some other issues, there are problems with "connecting the dots." Under current rules -- "chain breakers" are easy to come by -- almost without end. With a few changes in rules, and focus - we could get to sharper answers.

Chain Breakers http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee79f4e/618

It would be a relief to have a chance to talk to a NYT reporter, with a name I knew and could acknowledge - prior to talking to some government people. Not that anything could be done. But just to know - and for me to know. There are some things I believe ought to be settled.

The United States is now involved in deceptions (and, perhaps, self deceptions) that do not serve the real national interest - and the make the world a much less safe place than it ought to be.

rshow55 - 06:37pm Apr 10, 2002 EST (#1238 of 1241)

Gisterme is a highly esteemed visiter to this thread - with hundreds of postings last year -but since March, an infrequent one. On 1:53 today I made a post that ends

" Just musing -- if I put on a suit, shined my shoes, and walked into the State Department - asking for permission to see some people -- what do you think might happen?

"I'd like to make a pitch to the Russian Embassy, and some other places, as well.

13 minutes later, gisterme posts - cites a posting I'm proud of, and stand by rshow55 3/28/02 6:17pm and goes on

gisterme: " Fortunately, people in general are not so stupid as you apparently assume, Robert. Even a fool couldn't fail to notice that your "kingdom" is very sparsly populated...

I certainly have no "kingdom" -- but I do believe that very many people, in the United States, and especially elsewhere in the world, are very concerned with things this administration is saying, on missile defense and other subjects. Including some distinguished columnists of the New York Times.

If you'll recall the story of "the Emperor's New Clothes" -- there was a near-unanimity of opinion. And then a shift of opinion. Such things can happen.

It happened with Enron , for example. The analogies between the "missile defense" boondoggle and Enron seem pretty close. A lot hidden. A lot of smoke and mirrors. Much more promised, and claimed, than was actually there.

(3 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense