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 - 02:35pm Sep 7, 2003 EST (# 13559 of 13566)
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.

Some fights aren't worth fighting.

But some patterns of fighting are worth understanding.

I don't care very much what you think, Cooper - though I do care a little. I wouldn't be especially surprised if it turned out that gisterme was "just another poster" - or perhaps even a NYT writer. But I do think the matter of who gisterme is - is very much worth checking - and that the United States, and the world, would be better if that checking were effectively done. I think leaders of nation states ought to take an interest in the matter. I understand that you disagree.

On September 17, 2001 I posted this: http://www.mrshowalter.net/md9310.htm

We have to learn to deal with each other as full human beings - - even when we hate each other - - we need to be able to have "meetings of the mind" that are really clear, even when we disagree about basics - - we need to know enough that, if we fight, we don't do it by mistake, on the basis of misunderstandings . . . and we need to find, much more often, ways to "win-win" situations.

I think we can learn to do these things, better than today.

Cooper, my guess is that you find it outrageous that I post things like that. Because - the way you keep score - I'm "a bad guy" and you're "the good guy."

Arguments about "who is the bad guy" have a way of leading to disagreements - often for stupid reasons.

Often with both sides passionately sure that they are "on the side of the angels."

Most of this thread works about as well whether you "call me Ishmael" of not. http://www.mrshowalter.net/CaseyRel.html

Here's a fact . To find out whether I'm "just telling stories" or not - people would have to check facts - in detail - external to the "virtual patterns" that exist on this board.

But some facts are clear about the board itself. Somebody has done a lot of posts under the moniker gisterme - the content is as it is - and gisterme has said he's "just another poster" - and doesn't want to be checked.

I still think that the question "who is gisterme " should be answered by checking - and that some or all of that checking can and ought to happen whether gisterme wants it to happen or not.

You disagree.

I also think something else. Whether or not you agree. I think that the United States has serious problems with end games . The end game of the Cold War was screwed up. The end game in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars look messy. I think that to sort these things out - some key things need to be checked .

I think the issue is so important that it justifies a certain amount of impoliteness.

mazza9 - 03:54pm Sep 7, 2003 EST (# 13560 of 13566)
"Quae cum ita sunt" Caesar's Gallic Commentaries

The NY Times has blocked Robert in the past. Now they say that we should place him on our Ignore Post list. I've chosen this option but it has not reduced the amount of foolishness that he wreaks. I spoke to him one time and was abused in a similar manner to which Cooper was exposed. I've noticed that LChic is no longer posting! If only the NY Times would banish this banshee then we might return to a time when intelligent discourse was the name of the game.

Robert:

Go Away! You bother us! This venue is for grown ups!

jorian319 - 04:08pm Sep 7, 2003 EST (# 13561 of 13566)

Robert's pathetic ongoing bid to recapture the importance he felt in some past life is certainly a detriment to discourse, but it is not preclusive.

I state that recapturing some past importance (real of imagined) is Robert's mission, and I state it as a fact, which is borne out by his refusal to respond to Will's request by providing the specific quotes that led him to conclude that gisterme is some important liar. If Robert were being forthright with us, that would have been the first thing he'd do after being asked why he is stalking gisterme.

I have a hard time picturing anyone of any importance reading - let alone quoting and linking - The Guardian. It is Robert's past importance that is more in question than any other poster's current importance.

(5 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense