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 - 04:31pm Sep 29, 2003 EST (# 14136 of 14145)

rshow55 - 02:56pm Sep 29, 2003 EST (# 14132 of 14132)

Here's a somewhat detailed response -- just to set the record straight:

Cantabb - please answer me this. I asked jorian319 a specific question just above - in 14128 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.h1YTbtNkJG4.2637010@.f28e622/15834

Actually, in # 14128, you quote an exchange (from #13678) and ask 3 questions (clearly rhetorical: as Jorian says above) . Your circular self-referencing aside, the Questions you ask [roughly] : how long people have to “fight”, how many would “really want” to fight, and how many know how to avoid a “fight”?

No one expects an answer to rhetorical questions, but if you DID expect something specific in return (as if they weren’t rhetorical), I think you won’t get anything much different from the kind of answer Jorian just gave you.

And, taking them as rhetorical, what I said in response (#14124) is quite appropriate, i.e., Asking questions is NOT “fighting,” pursuing the answers is NOT ‘escalation’ in fighting.

Would you have a clear answer to the question asked ( not just another effort to generate divergence and another expression of hostility ).

See above. Clear enough ?

“Divergence” ? “Hostility” ? Asking you to focus is NOT “divergence," and putting inane nebulous thoughts where they really belong is NOT “hostility,” either !

When I suggested a very sensible way to solve some problems - or so it seemed to me - your response was an emphatic "you couldn't pay me (us) enough" - ( as I recall ).

What you suggested – and have been saying ad nauseam – is just sunday school generalities -- nothing new to a 5-year old.

And, you are also CONFUSED here. Your “recall” is NOT quite my recall or the record.

See if this rings a bell: What you quoted [ and screwed it up ] was my answer to your baseless charge that I may be a ‘paid’ employee of NYT and that NYT and I should be “ashamed” of my statements. It was not “(us)” – as you noted erroneously – but ME. It was a comment I made to another poster (bbuck), who had further speculated on your mindless charge :

cantabb - 10:38pm Sep 27, 2003 EST (# 14075 of 14075)

bbbuck - 09:05pm Sep 27, 2003 EST (# 14068 of 14074)

The 'nytimes' is paying 'the moniker that can't be named's salary.

Hmmm. That explains alot.

How much are they paying him?

Cantabb: They ain't got enough money !

Got that ?

Everybody knows that it is always possible to pick fights. Would you know, perchance, how to damp them down - and resolve things to a workable closure ?

YOU think there is ONLY one single way to dampen ALL types of conflicts down and come to a “workable closure” ? And that’s YOUR way -- something that still remains undefined beyond the Sunday school preachings and inanities. You think most adults don’t know and follow it already in their daily life ?

Here's something were a small amount of cooperation between us might be imagined, it seems to me - though I guess I expect you to disagree. ( From 13215 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX8@@.f28e622/14898

Confused again ! That post deals with your comments on Tom Friedman’s L&OT. More well-healed generalities. You mention NO specific area for potential co-operation with ME.

"If you follow this board, it is easy to see that I couldn't do the things I propose in.......... "I'd be blocked - quite often on status grounds. If someone with stature and connections were involved - the work could actually get done. Moreover, it could be done honestly - and, I believe, in a way "the average reader of The New York Times " would approve of.

You said NOTHING specific yet that you think you can do ? If you want to save humanity, I suggest take a n

cantabb - 04:32pm Sep 29, 2003 EST (# 14137 of 14145)

rshow55 - 02:56pm Sep 29, 2003 EST (# 14132 of 14132)

continued with overlap.......

"If you follow this board, it is easy to see that I couldn't do the things I propose in.......... "I'd be blocked - quite often on status grounds. If someone with stature and connections were involved - the work could actually get done. Moreover, it could be done honestly - and, I believe, in a way "the average reader of The New York Times " would approve of.

You said NOTHING specific yet that you think you can do ? If you want to save humanity, I suggest take a number go to the back of the line – a few billion-long (already includes Osama and Saddam). Also, it’ll be nice if YOU could tell “the average reader of the New York Times” what are you trying to do and how – before they can ‘approve of’ anything. Do you think Friedman and his book haven’t quite made to NYT ?

I asked jorian319 a specific question just above - in 14128 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.h1YTbtNkJG4.2637010@.f28e622/15834 - Cantabb - would you have an answer?

Already did See above.

If you wanted to help with that - and had the NYT connections - would you know how to do so in a way that could actually be effective?

Help with what ? Help you save humanity ? Help you bring ALL conflicts to a “workable closure”?

I think you'd mess it up - even if you were trying not to.

And, you’re sure of that ?

Relax: NO way near what you’d do !

“Messiah complex” -- on the top of a few more !

(8 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense