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 - 09:13am Sep 7, 2003 EST (# 13551 of 13553)
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.

TWO YEARS LATER A Rare View of 9/11, Overlooked By JAMES GLANZ http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/07/nyregion/07TAPE.html

The only videotape known to have recorded both planes on impact, and only the second image of any kind showing the first strike, has surfaced. • Audio Slide Show With Video Stills

Here's the Front Page of NYT on the Web - September 12, 2001 - showing journalism that was part of the great effort, under the leadership of Howell Raines , that won so many Pulitzer Prizes for the NYT. http://www.mrshowalter.net/NYTWebFrontPage_9_11_02.htm

And, from a day later

World War III By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN http://www.mrshowalter.net/WorldWarIII.htm

"It's not that difficult to learn how to fly a plane once it's up in the air," he said. "And remember, they never had to learn how to land."

No, they didn't. They only had to destroy. We, by contrast, have to fight in a way that is effective without destroying the very open society we are trying to protect. We have to fight hard and land safely. We have to fight the terrorists as if there were no rules, and preserve our open society as if there were no terrorists. It won't be easy. It will require our best strategists, our most creative diplomats and our bravest soldiers. Semper Fi.

Our soldiers have been effective as soldiers - and properly brave in strictly military terms. Our strategies and diplomacy come off worse. Much worse. For reasons that ought to be faced, and fixed.

rshow55 - 09:19am Sep 7, 2003 EST (# 13552 of 13553)
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.

http://www.mrshowalter.net/8969.htm includes an overconfident and ill informed post by gisterme - and this that still seems good to me.

. . . . .

rshowalter - 06:18pm Sep 13, 2001 EST (#8970 of 8980)

gisterme 9/13/01 5:44pm ... you better be certain of that.

Just be sure that you're dealing with the common enemy in the ways that allies feel comfortable about.

gisterme , we've both agreed that we'd like a "world without nukes" - - and we'd like a world with less terror , not more.

Just a suggestion. Given the number of possibilities, when you set up an attack -- at least do the exercise -- how can you attack them multiple ways at once.

The best attacks, historically, have mostly had the following characteristic

1. Set 'em up for a specific attack, that sets up their forces in a predictable way.

2. Hit them from another dimension, where their defensive setup, for the attack they thought they were facing, disarms, or nearly disarms them.

3. Reduce them to disarray, and take 'em down.

(Several switches may be necessary to get to disarray.)

MOST OF ALL , whatever you do, have your allies really behind you.

AND HAVE AN END GAME -- this is absolutely essential. One that works -- not a botch like the Desart Storm war -- which looked like a masterpiece, and ended as a travesty.

If you can't do that, you can easily go slam-banging into disaster.

. . .

If you had a real world community behind you -- getting control of terrorism would be easy.

HOW HARD HAVE YOU WORKED AT THAT?

rshowalter - 06:28pm Sep 13, 2001 EST (#8973

For instance, you better understand clearly , the reasons why almarst has expressed so many criticisms of the United States here.

The Bush administration should act to make things better , not worse.

If you're doing the opposite, other nations in the world have plenty of reasons to resist. And a lot of effective ways to do so.

- - - -

I thought then that gisterme was an influential personage. I still think so. Of course I could be wrong about that. To find out, you'd need some staff, with some power. There would have to be some checking.

I also thought that gisterme was listening hard - and that he knew my background, which I hadn't, at that time, made public.

I spent a lot of time yesterday wondering if I should have made key things about my background clear much sooner - maybe I should have.

(1 following message)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense