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.

robkettenburg03 - 12:30pm Jun 6, 2003 EST (# 12352 of 12357)

rshow55:

Your posts would carry a LOT more weight with the military crowd had you ACTUALLY served in the military. Your posts had me going for quite some time - I actually thought you were some high ranking officer or government bureaucrat with all your long winded posts and responses to other's posts, as you seem to know a lot about this forum's topic. However, you LOST all your military admirers on this board (I bet there's more of us out here than you think.) when you questioned my statements about publishing or talking about classified material. Your response made it OBVIOUS to ANYONE who's ever served in the military that YOU'VE NEVER ACTUALLY BEEN IN THE MILITARY, HAVE YOU? So, for all your long winded posts and long winded responses to other peoples' posts, it turns out YOU DON'T KNOW THE FIRST THING ABOUT HOW OUR MILITARY WORKS! Which means you know a WHOLE LOT LESS about missle defense than your posts suggest, since you've never actually served in the military. And as for my rank, I went from E-1 to E-4 in 14 months. The proof is on my home page for all to see. All I had to do to make E-5 was re-enlist.

http://www.geocities.com/robkettenburg2002

almarst2002 - 12:40pm Jun 6, 2003 EST (# 12353 of 12357)

U.S. Secret Report Raises Questions Over Iraqi Weapons - http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2889971

mazza9 - 12:58pm Jun 6, 2003 EST (# 12354 of 12357)
"Quae cum ita sunt" Caesar's Gallic Commentaries

fred: As always you are right and Armpits smells!A moment of silence for the American, British, and Canadian boys who stormed Normandy and dropped from the sky behind enemy lines. June 6, 1944! The 1938 price would have been less, as you say, but you get peace from war. You get brutality when you eschew war!

I suppose that Alarmst is right. We need to withdraw from Iraq and give the country back to Saddam. NOT!!!!!

rshow55 - 01:15pm Jun 6, 2003 EST (# 12355 of 12357)
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.

Leaders often have problems which make "ideal solutions" impossible - or require extra time, work, and costs to get them. Some fights may even be unavoidable - though often workable compromises happen.

Hamas Halts Truce Talks With Abbas By GREG MYRE http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/06/international/middleeast/06CND-HAMAS.html

JERUSALEM, June 6 - Top Hamas leaders said today that the militant Islamic group was calling off cease-fire talks with Palestinian prime minister, Mahmoud Abbas, a move that poses a direct challenge to the current Middle East peace plan.

( search alligators , this thread )

""When you're up to your ass in alligators - it is hard to remember that your objective was to drain the swamp"

Still, it is important to remember, and keep remembering, what the basic objectives are - and when they are frustrated, remember why failure happened. Good objectives and ideas shouldn't be abandoned - just because a past attempt to get to them got messed up.

12079 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.kIb4bXFWdb0.564024@.f28e622/13710

"In 1952, when General of the Army Dwight David Eisenhower ran for president (he hadn't cared much whether he ran as a Democrat or a Republican) he had clear objectives.

He wanted to combine the high achievements in administration and technocratic management that the US had up and running - with democracy and American ideals - in the service of a common good the country agreed on.

He wanted to diffuse the high achievements in administration and technocratic management that the US had up and running, in the service of world welfare, world prosperity, and world peace, and to meet the competition of totalitarian systems.

"Eisenhower had good reasons to think these objectives reasonable ones - and good reasons to believe that he was the best man available, by a large margin, to achieve them. There probably never was a man with wider, more intense, or more successful experience in administration and technocratic management of large systems than D.D. Eisenhower. Neither his selection nor his successes had happened by accident.

"Eisenhower's presidency was a very frustrating one, though he achieved a lot. The main sources of frustration, and deep concern for the country that he had that I heard about were technical.

- - - - - - -

Of course, there were plenty of problems that were not techical - but obvious. The spoilers of peace in Hamas are obvious today.

But the "theoretical" concerns were still big - and very basic.

Eisenhower felt that it was important - without forgetting unavoidable flopping around - to know what good solutions were - and what necessary steps toward getting them involved, in detail.

(2 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense