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 - 10:31am Sep 14, 2003 EST (# 13655 of 13658)
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.

The New York Times is a loyal opposition - and chooses its words carefully. An Unsustainable Policy on Iraq http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/14/opinion/14SUN1.html

I am being loyal, too. I am doing what I promised to do.

Often, the question how much do things matter is a key one.

People make judgement calls. The New York Times makes calls - this thread continues - and I'm permitted to post on it - because of judgement calls the Times had made.

The urge to punish cheats is strong enough that it seems unlikely that I've been able to set out many lies, on things that matter (especially things that matter to the TIMES as an organization) - that the TIMES knows are false. For instance, in a dialog about "what would James Bond do?"

. The Urge to Punish Cheats: Not Just Human, but Selfless by NATALIE ANGIER January 22, 2002 http://www.mrshowalter.net/UrgeToPunishCheatsNotJustHumanButSelfless.htm

The TIMES makes careful judgements - and is loyal to the United States. I'm making careful judgement calls, too.

13637 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.JXA5bQSWFt9.0@.f28e622/15330

I know that lchic and I are both proud of the accomplishments described and put in context in MD1999 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.JXA5bQSWFt9.0@.f28e622/2484 - - communication is important - and the dangers of inadequate communication are thrown into relief by background like

WORD FOR WORD Khrushchev Unplugged From the Middle East to Cuba http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/14/weekinreview/14WORD.html

That piece informs and reinforces reasons we have to communicate better than we did during the Cuban Missile Crisis - so well dramatized in the movie Thirteen Days .

We're dealing with primal issues here. I believe that everybody who cares about the survival of the world should consider carefully the concerns about the military-industrial complex set out in the FAREWELL ADDRESS of President Dwight D. Eisenhower January 17, 1961. http://www.geocities.com/~newgeneration/ikefw.htm The core things Eisenhower warned against have happened. In many ways it is humanly understandable -- but there is a mess, it is as dangerous as it can possibly be, and we need to fix it.

13316-7 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.JXA5bQSWFt9.0@.f28e622/15004

This thread is a "game" in the game theory sense. I'm doing the best I can to reduce the risks of the world blowing up. Some games are more serious than others.

It seems to me that some essential things are working.

I've posted strong suggestions that gisterme was connected to the Bush administration - and was actively misrepresenting that. http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.eea14e1/10363 - - and see no reason to apologize for having done so.

Organizations are poisoned by lies, cheating, and bad judgement - and when bad judgement continues for long enough - issues of character arise - and it is loyal to raise them.

I did promise Gisterme a limited apology - and I'm continuing to work on it until it feels right. I expect to post it before noon.

wrcooper - 11:33am Sep 14, 2003 EST (# 13656 of 13658)

Showalter

I know you're mentally ill, but that doesn't prevent you from acting, frankly, despicably and dishonorably. You have absolutely no grounds for calling gisterme a "liar". All you have are vague, unsubstantiated hunches and your warped intuition.

You, who sanctimoniously preach the importance of "checking," dealing only with hard facts and fast figures; responsible, reliable data; blue sky reporting, should, more than any other, exercise caution and judicious restraint before publicly denouncing somebody who point-blank denies your charges against him.

It's all so easy for you, isn't it, to call somebody a liar, whom you don't even know; whose true identity you have no real clue about. You're not just a nutcase; you're a louse. I'm sorry I ever bothered with you.

rshow55 - 11:59am Sep 14, 2003 EST (# 13657 of 13658)
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.

Cooper, I don't like you either, on balance. I think that, in a number of ways that matter to me, and ought to matter to you, you're a lot of things worse than being a "liar."

Everyone decieves, one way or another, according to some things.

To what purpose? According to what priorities?

I personally think you should be ashamed of yourself - and that people who know you should be ashamed of you - - but I know others may disagree.

(1 following message)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense