New York Times on the Web Forums Science
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
(1235 previous messages)
- 02:26pm Apr 10, 2002 EST (#1236
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
. . . 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?
- 02:38pm Apr 10, 2002 EST (#1237
I was preparing this before gisterme posted, and think it
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
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
2. if the people involved felt safe dealing with
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
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.
- 06:37pm Apr 10, 2002 EST (#1238
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
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.
New York Times on the Web Forums Science