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.

cantabb - 08:33pm Sep 27, 2003 EST (# 14064 of 14080)

rshow55 - 06:07pm Sep 27, 2003 EST (# 14060 of 14061)

That's been based on the assumption - that some may think naive - that people can learn how to agree to disagree clearly, without fighting, comfortably, so that they can cooperate stably, safely, and productively. Knowing that wouldn't avoid all conflict - ….. are especially useful - though arguably not "orignial" - and lchic and I have tried to produce some.

“[N]aïve.” You hit the nail on the head ! Is this anything new ? Even to the kindergarten kids ?

Cantabb: (iv) what's the basis of your various claims, re lives saved, people in government paying attention or learning from your postings, etc.

I'm guessing. One basis of my guessing is the fine posts by fredmoore and manj on this thread, and the high literary quality of some of gisterme's postings, too.

Can these “regulars” confirm your claims ? Or, in a position to do so ?

I have some other reasons. Every once in a while, it seems to me that this thread might be influencing, however indirectly, some of the thinking that ends up in articles by the NYT. I don't think I'm guessing that politicians look at things published at the TIMES - and it seems sure that the TIMES knows if TIMES people read this thread. On statistical grounds, that seems likely.

When you yourself are endlessly quoting NYT (and other media sources), and the reporters/columnists from NYT et al obviously have sources and access that you do NOT, then what you call your “reason” sounds totally absurd. What "statistical" grounds ? Highly presumptuous.

Here's a fact - a fact that isn't so important to know if explosive fighting without end is the objective - but a fact that is important to know if stable resolutions that pass reasonable tests of fairness are to be achieved.

NOT a fact. Just a naïve platitude.

For stable end games - people and groups have to be workably clear on these key questions. ……………… Knowledge of how to tie your shoes is a humble thing. But useful in its way, too.

Same inanities, repeated several times before. Such a repetition doesn’t turn them into anything least bit significant over time.

I'd like to set out better answers to (i) - (iv) above - but not if cantabb is in the position of "judge, jury, and executioner."

ONCE AGAIN, you’re inappropriately trying to personalize the issue.

Remember, I’ve asked you only a set of basic questions on the claims you yourself have been making.

A very good way to do so - if the NYT really wanted to do so - without disclosing names of posters to me - would be to contact me - and see if I could set something up with an interlocator who is an officer of the University of Wisconsin. It might take some money to do so - but if the NYT wanted it done - I might find the money. The loyalty of this officer to the United States and the UW would be beyond question. Answers as complete as anybody could reasonably want would be available - with openings for checking if checking was desired - and contact with people who have already checked a good deal.

Haven’t we heard such talk many many times before ?

Whatever you think your personal problems are, they are between you and those involved in the US Government and/or UW-Madison.

As a poster looking for answers to questions and the concerns raised, that’s totally irrelevant.

Try if you can convince NYT to act on your suggested intervention. And spare the Forum readers.

All I've noticed is : A constant abuse of NYT forums for some personal reasons. And the inappropriateness of this MD thread, as used, under “Science Forums” [May be useful elsewhere].

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And, if after 25,000 posts, this empty wandering rhetoric is the best you have to o

cantabb - 08:34pm Sep 27, 2003 EST (# 14065 of 14080)

rshow55 - 06:07pm Sep 27, 2003 EST (# 14060 of 14061)

Cont'd with overlap....

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And, if after 25,000 posts, this empty wandering rhetoric is the best you have to offer by way of explanation, you do nothing but further strengthen my initial assessment of your “work," ‘using’ NYT forums.

lchic - 09:02pm Sep 27, 2003 EST (# 14066 of 14080)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Iran is for Transparency!

(14 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense