New York Times Forums
The New York Times

Home
Job Market
Real Estate
Automobiles
News
International
National
Washington
Business
Technology
Science
Health
Sports
New York Region
Education
Weather
Obituaries
NYT Front Page
Corrections
Opinion
Editorials/Op-Ed
Readers' Opinions


Features
Arts
Books
Movies
Travel
Dining & Wine
Home & Garden
Fashion & Style
Crossword/Games
Cartoons
Magazine
Week in Review
Multimedia
College
Learning Network
Services
Archive
Classifieds
Book a Trip
Personals
Theater Tickets
Premium Products
NYT Store
NYT Mobile
E-Cards & More
About NYTDigital
Jobs at NYTDigital
Online Media Kit
Our Advertisers
Member_Center
Your Profile
E-Mail Preferences
News Tracker
Premium Account
Site Help
Privacy Policy
Newspaper
Home Delivery
Customer Service
Electronic Edition
Media Kit
Community Affairs
Text Version
TipsGo to Advanced Search
Search Options divide
go to Member Center Log Out
  

 [F] 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.


Earliest Messages Previous Messages Recent Messages Outline (13275 previous messages)

rshow55 - 05:09pm Aug 9, 2003 EST (# 13276 of 13280)
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.

In an artificial but entertaining movie, Blast From the Past (1999) http://www.newline.com/sites/blastpast/ there's an interesting scene.

http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.GMoQb7bDxyz.0@.f28e622/13463

When Casey told me to "come in through the New York Times" - he thought that that might be my only chance. But he also thought it an entirely reasonable suggestion - and so did I. Communication would be established, and I'd be passed, on a confidential basis, to people in the governement who would act in good faith on a matter where, we both felt, almost everybody involved had reasonable reason to be proud. We both took it for granted that people at the TIMES had very good connections, both directly and indirectly, with the United States security apparatus at all levels.

I've never had any reason to doubt that. For instance:

The Times Names a New Chief of Its Bureau in Washington By DAVID CARR http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/07/business/media/07PAPE.html

"Philip Taubman, the deputy editor of the editorial page at The New York Times, has been named the newspaper's Washington bureau chief.

. . .

"Mr. Taubman, a 1971 graduate of Stanford University, is the author of " Secret Empire: Eisenhower, the C.I.A. and the Hidden Story of America's Space Espionage, " which was published this year by Simon & Schuster.

http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md8000s/md8393.htm

- - -

At the same time, and surprisingly, both Casey (who had been Reagan's campaign chairman) and I were naive in some significant ways. Particularly about paradigm conflict - and the ability of people to rationalize - and dehumanize.

Maybe we were facing a "simply impossible" situation. But it didn't seem so to us.

Or to me.

- - -

Eisenhower taught me something about negotiation - and maybe I've misunderstood or misused it. When he had clear technical objectives, that could not be compromised - he took his time, and made no essential compromises whatsoever. So far, I haven't either.

Eisenhower didn't quote Menken to me - but he did have essential reservations about politics, for reasons not unlike those Menken talks about:

In order to get anywhere near high office (a politician) has to make so many compromises . . . . ."

For some clear technical purposes - at the level of technical logic - it isn't necessary, or even tolerable, to make any compromises at all - except those of a clear technical nature, with clear scorekeeping.

I was given a very special education - specializing in that sort of technical logic - because on some key issues on which national security and prosperity depended it was necessary to "be sure you're right" - - on key technical issues before "going ahead" with the politics.

More Messages Recent Messages (4 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Your Preferences

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  / Missile Defense