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 - 09:58am Sep 14, 2003 EST (# 13653 of 13655)
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.

Team loyalty does not mean loyalty to leaders who are doing massive damage to the team.

Top subordinates of George W. Bush are appearing on TV news programs defending the Bush policies - such as they are.

The people doing so are impressive, courageous, and loyal people - in ways that matter to them - and in some ways that matter to me. I believe that they have shown such bad judgement - have lied so much - have cheated so much - that it is disloyal to the United States to give them much respect - of pay too much attention to what they say - and the confident way they say it.

12401 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.hWrmbxQZFtg.9080394@.f28e622/14054

The definitions in http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/courage are interesting, and show interesting conflicts

. . .

The theatrical virtues of courage, which Douglas MacArthur had in very high degree, are clearly shown, insofar as a picture can, in the image in http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/politics/politics-iraq-weapons-usa.html labeled

Condoleezza Rice, national security adviser, appearing on CBS's Face the Nation.

That image is off the net - but the image cited in 12988 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.hWrmbxQZFtg.9080394@.f28e622/14664 remains, from

, C.I.A. Chief Takes Blame in Assertion on Iraqi Uranium By DAVID E. SANGER and JAMES RISEN http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/12/international/worldspecial/12INTE.html

. . . though the internet image doesn't begin to do her justice.

Looking at the print image, I was struck by the resemblence NSA Rice showed to Ingrid Bergman in Casablanca - - where Bergman acted the part of an intelligent, beautiful woman - under stress, not backing down, and in full possession of her faculties.

I have little doubt that Condoleezza Rice was physically brave - and intellectually brave, as well as beautiful - when she was trying to be a champion ice skater, as she is today. It can take courage to lie, to distort - to hold an indefensible story together in the face of challenges. And it can also take courage to deny doubts - when they exist. University deans have those virtues in high degree.

Eisenhower had problems - both as a leader, and as a thoughful man, with that kind of courage. He was a superb leader when he was sure of his ground - and looked the part - when he was sure of his ground. He bluffed very, very well - was one of the better poker bluffers of his age - but found it difficult to bluff under ceremonial circumstances.

I think the photographs of Dwight D. Eisenhower are quite interesting - he was surpassingly photogenic as a general officer - in terms of everything I was able to find out. His pictures were consistently reassuring, inspiring, and good looking. But he could be painfully unphotogenic - terribly unreliable by theatrical standards - as a president.

12402 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.hWrmbxQZFtg.9080394@.f28e622/14055

Dwight D. Eisenhower was a great leader - the greatest technocrat-soldier, the greatest logistician, and one of the greatest strategists and tacticians that the country has ever had. Because of the time he was born, and his assignments, he was close to people (notably Douglas MacArthur) who had faced physical danger and handled it well. Eisenhower had not. It bothered him.

My work under Eisenhower was as illicit, in military protocol terms, and in political terms, as Mimi Fehnstock's relation to Kennedy was in terms of domestic protocols - and especially because I had the honor to work on problems where Eisenhower had superbly informed doubts - where Eisenhower had responsible, calibrated, carefully informed fears that needed to be faced in the only way they could be faced - by solving problems. Neither Fehnstock's affair with Kennedy, nor my work

rshow55 - 10:00am Sep 14, 2003 EST (# 13654 of 13655)
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.

Neither Fehnstock's affair with Kennedy, nor my work under Eisenhower, could have happened without organizational accomodations - hers among the White House staff and reporters - mine involving a few people at Cornell, in Gettysburg, at Ft. Dietrick, and a few officers who could fly small planes. (Dietrick and Gettysburg are about an hour's drive apart, and both have servicable airstrips. )

It was my job , in some senses, to be insubordinate - and to be that insubordinate in some ways - I had to be completely, clearly, perfectly subordinate in others.

It was my job to be very intellectual - and intellectually "insubordinate" - and to be that intellectually insubordinate, I had to show some military virtues.

For as long as I worked with Eisenhower and Casey - nobody had any question about my loyalty to the interests of the United States - and I'm being loyal now.

It is not loyal to stand by as patterns of cheating, lying, and sustained bad judgement mess up the United States of America.

(1 following message)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense