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 - 12:41pm Aug 9, 2003 EST (# 13273 of 13275)
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.

What a Tangled Web We Weave By BRUCE KLUGER http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/09/opinion/09KLUG.html

As anyone who has ever clicked a mouse knows, on the Internet, everything links to everything.

And everyone "has links" to many things that can't be reasonably emphasized about them. For example, statistics make it likely that essentially every clergyman " associates with users of pornography" - because pornography is so widespread. (See Naked Capitalists by Frank Rich - NYT Magazine May 20, 2001. ) How significant those links are , and the nature of those links are valid questions - when asked of a clergyman.

The questions about associations is how do they fit - and I'm proud of the work on the notion of disciplined beauty that lchic and I have done together. http://www.mrshowalter.net/DBeauty.html

- - - -

Fredmoore speaks of "human laser" - and a great deal of human behavior is "laser-like" in significant ways. We couldn't possibly be as good as we are without "laser-like" behavior - in our own minds - and in our function as groups. Here are some searches, from 2001, listing postings involving the idea of lasers in missile defense. These postings can be found via http://www.mrshowalter.net/calendar1.htm

http://www.mrshowalter.net/lasar_02.htm http://www.mrshowalter.net/lasar_03.htm http://www.mrshowalter.net/lasar_04.htm http://www.mrshowalter.net/lasar_05.htm http://www.mrshowalter.net/lasar_06.htm http://www.mrshowalter.net/lasar_07.htm

http://www.mrshowalter.net/optics_01.htm http://www.mrshowalter.net/optics_02.htm http://www.mrshowalter.net/optics_03.htm http://www.mrshowalter.net/optics_04.htm http://www.mrshowalter.net/optics_05.htm http://www.mrshowalter.net/optics_06.htm http://www.mrshowalter.net/optics_07.htm

A major point, about convergence of behavior and ideas, and related actions - has been a major subject of this board - and I think lchic and I have made progress about it.

" Be sure you're right. . . . THEN go ahead. "

We can do bettter at getting to closure than we've been doing - and a lot would get better if we did. Eisenhower cared about getting better at this basic level.

Fredmoore , I think H.L. Menken would have had sense enough to think your http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.wG8dbB28xPK.0@.f28e622/14948 was too cynical.

Sometimes damping and avoidance of coherence is what you want. Other times, you want Chain Breakers http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee79f4e/618

I don't think Menken would have been dismissive at all or the work that's gone into this thread, or of this poem Secular Redemption http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee79f4e/619

There were times - the most important times - when Menken was downright puritanical about the truth - and I think that the TIMES might move a bit in that direction sometimes, too.

http://www.mrshowalter.net/MD8393.HTM

(2 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense