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 - 09:49am Sep 15, 2003 EST (# 13680 of 13689)
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.

If people would admit that simple fact we could sort out a lot - and have more fun.

From where we are - it is dangerous not to try to grow up at least enough to do this much.

If you "call me Ishmael" http://www.mrshowalter.net/CaseyRel.html - not a lot that is valid on this thread would change. Though some things would.

The New York Times - Science - Missile Defense thread has been a big effort - and not only for me. http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7726f/1298

rshow55 - 02:29am Sep 16, 2003 EST (# 13681 of 13689)
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.

Jorian319 has some reservations about the Guardian Observer - but that paper uses words with care - and did so here:

A failure of intelligence Openness will make us more secure Leader Sunday September 14, 2003 The Observer http://politics.guardian.co.uk/kelly/comment/0,13747,1041771,00.html

includes this language:

" Blair may have selectively deployed information but he is not a liar . He was misled. Was it cock-up or conspiracy?

. . . .

"We have to learn from these events. . . . . . We would be more secure as a result.

- - - - - - -

Now, I've followed the Guardian enough to suspect that people who wrote that leader were using words, including the word liar , with multiple meanings - and mixed feelings.

Jorian319 and I will disagree about a number of things - but my guess is that we'd agree about that.

Could Blair have intentionally misled - and remained a leader of the tribe? That's a serious question - because leaders do intentionally mislead - and sometimes intentionally mislead their own team members - and that is sometimes expected and accepted. Can we talk about these circumstances effectively?

rshow55 - 01:40pm Sep 15, 2003 EST (# 13682 of 13689)
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.

Could George W. Bush have intentionally misled - and remain a leader of the tribe?

I don't necessarily think the answer is "no" - but I do believe that there are very good reasons why people with real power should find out who gisterme is - and do so in public. http://www.mrshowalter.net/Sequential.htm

Posts by Gisterme are set out at http://www.mrshowalter.net/PostsBy_Gisterme.htm - which is a 32 page list of links.

I think it is worth checking how gisterme and Bush are related.

I think the stakes are high enough to justify some impoliteness. When others disagree - it seems to me that they ought to think clearly about why they do.

Is it because they think gisterme is GWB ?

If so - what reasons do they have that he shouldn't be forced to admit that - and what reasons do they have that he should ?

Plainly, there are arguments that go both ways.

How do these arguments and reasons fit together logically?

What weights ought these reasons have?

It seems to me that these are vital issues - issues of life and death - and that people who love America ought to think about what happens if we have conventions that give an unconditional "right to lie" to Presidents and other politicians.

(7 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense