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 - 07:57am Jun 3, 2003 EST (# 12286 of 12291)
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.

Thanks, Fredmoore!

bbbuck - 01:40pm Jun 2, 2003 EST (# 12283 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.MKiBbkC1dRA.0@.f28e622/13931 is a professional piece of work. In response to my statement that I'd set out to talk to people - in ways I'm honor-bound to do - carefully submitting to prior-restraint censorship - as best I can arrange it so that no reasonably classified information would be revealed, the response is

http://check-this-you-mother/komodos-are-pretty.com

A reasonable interpretation of http://check-this-you-mother/komodos-are-pretty.com , which connects to nada, nothingness - is "we'll kill you if you do that."

A message artfully delivered. The NYT probably knows - and I do not - is bbbuck on the NYT payroll? We live in a complex world.

I'm working to do just exactly what I promised Casey I'd do - consistent with things we both promised D.D. Eisenhower we'd try to do.

Perhaps the CIA has a problem - that it has told so many lies - on so many subjects - including so many that are in plain contradiction to clearly established facts - that they have to resist discussion of anything from the past. Even if that blocks out solutions that I have reasonable reason to feel were central and important - because Eisenhower told me they were (and for other reasons, too.)

Here's an obvious fact. Not-very-veiled threats like http://check-this-you-mother/komodos-are-pretty.com , delivered from anonymous sources - inhibit actions. Similar threats, from known people working through known channels - stop them.

Every single thing I was assigned to do required some essential support from a nation state in two ways.

First of all, they all involved such complex cooperation that they were fragile - they could be stopped with "a few well placed phone calls."

Secondly, they all involved such complex cooperation that occasionally, the idea that the government wanted the work done had to be conveyed.

I have been working very hard to present technical proposals to the US government - so that I can hope to get the essential support described above. I've been rebuffed. It is reasonable - submitting to censorship on issues that are reasonably classified - for me to ask for assistance from firms with connections with other nation states - including Germany and France.

rshow55 - 07:57am Jun 3, 2003 EST (# 12287 of 12291)
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.

I've been arguing on this thread that checking is important - and bbbuck's http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.MKiBbkC1dRA.0@.f28e622/13931 gives some very good reasons why.

Is secrecy sometimes necessary. I've never doubted that. But deception is expensive. There was a reason that the OWI was shut down on the same day that the Japanese surrendered on the Missouri. OWI was stating an important principle - and that principle needs to be remembered. In the United States, lying can't be "standard operating procedure - and the right to check is vitally important.

Standard Operating Procedure By PAUL KRUGMAN http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/03/opinion/03KRUG.html

The mystery of Iraq's missing weapons of mass destruction has become a lot less mysterious. . . . .

But the important point is that this isn't about Saddam: it's about us. The public was told that Saddam posed an imminent threat. If that claim was fraudulent, the selling of the war is arguably the worst scandal in American political history — worse than Watergate, worse than Iran-contra. Indeed, the idea that we were deceived into war makes many commentators so uncomfortable that they refuse to admit the possibility.

But here's the thought that should make those commentators really uncomfortable. Suppose that this administration did con us into war. And suppose that it is not held accountable for its deceptions, so Mr. Bush can fight what Mr. Hastings calls a "khaki election" next year. In that case, our political system has become utterly, and perhaps irrevocably, corrupted.

Perhaps not quite irrevocably corrupted. But corrupted enough that checking is very important - issues of proportion are very important - and competent courage is vital. I'm trying to do my best.

(4 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense