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 - 04:53pm Aug 13, 2003 EST (# 13291 of 13294)
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.

Fredmoore's 13286 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.pm6Abw6oyXW.3119319@.f28e622/14972 was an interesting posting, though I think my reaction to his 13283 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.pm6Abw6oyXW.3119319@.f28e622/14969 was a reasonable one . If he didn't intend to convey a picture of incest and child abuse in a "deniable" way in http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.pm6Abw6oyXW.3119319@.f28e622/14969 , he still succeeded in doing so. I found his interpretation of http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.pm6Abw6oyXW.3119319@.f28e622/14969 awkward - perhaps I was alone in that.

I thought this might be important - and would be, if fredmoore was at the NYT - or had high connections with the government.

. Fredmoore (13286): "But the issue remains (at least in my mind) whether or not you would be just an ego-dingo on a dinnertime feeding if actually given the power you desire. You do have trouble in garnering people's trust as is evidenced in exchanges with most posters on this forum for example."

I'd want enough power to work, and not be paralyzed. The main thing I've been asking for was set out in June of 2002 http://www.mrshowalter.net/Burke_Jun16.htm and, I believe, communicated to the FBI. People at the NYT could not have been in any doubt about the needs by the end of September 2000.

"If I was free of security limitations - or had clear limitations, and that was in writing, or otherwise clearly checkable then I could interact with people in workable ways - for collaborations and business relationships that fit real needs, in real circumstances.

"I need workable answers to both the following questions:

". . . How can I pay you enough?

"...... How can I thank you enough?

"for both, I need workable credentialing. Credentialing that may be limited, but that does not confront people with unacceptable conflicts and risks.

I set out a priority ordering for me in http://www.mrshowalter.net/Burke_Jun16.htm :

National interest . . . NYT interest . . scientific community interest . . . U.W. interest . . . my own interest.

Given decency on the part of others - that will continue to be my priority ordering - though changes in ordering which would make sense to "the average reader of The New York Times" - in light of all the circumstances - would be likely to make sense to me.

Fredmoore speaks of "trust." What's reasonably meant by trust in the context of this particular board? Or "garnering people's trust" ? In terms of the board, or the people posting on the board?

(3 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense