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 - 12:30pm Oct 3, 2003 EST (# 14264 of 14270)

rshow55 - 10:34am Oct 3, 2003 EST (# 14256 of 14261)

My approach makes sense of " basic principles of rational analysis" that have been dangerously incomplete all these years.

What ? Wonder how we managed so far [with ““ basic principles of rational analysis" that have been dangerously incomplete all these years.”]

One of the few basic things required in rational analysis: “facts” not personal opinions or fiction, or a convenient blend of them. Without this essential ingredient, the rest is highly suspect. And ambiguous ramblings – instead of clear reasoning – add to your problem.

People really do "connect the dots" and "go round and round" and very often it converges. That makes our humanity and our culture possible.

They DO it all the time. But the effective ones also HAVE most of “the dots” [relevant facts; not a mixture of fact-fiction] ; and they CAN “connect the dots” logically/rationally to develop at least part of the jigsaw puzzle. Things MISSING from your approach or analyses.

rshow55 - 10:52am Oct 3, 2003 EST (# 14259 of 14261)

KAEP is a relevant topic !

This is from a poster to whom everything under the sun “is,” as has been, relevant here for so long.

rshow55 - 11:01am Oct 3, 2003 EST (# 14260 of 14261)

I'm saying that : To sort things out well - you need both synthesis from associations - "connecting the dots" - and "going around and around, different ways - to establish internal and external consistency - loop tests. and Cantabb calls that "nonsense."

I’ve mentioned the reasons I call it nonsense a number of times to you before, and once again, here [above & below].

Here's an analogy ( not exact in every way ) that deals with a lot of human experience.

Grinding is a partly statistical process - an abrasive geometry "goes round and round" to shape and polish another object. ………. that converges very often on sharp logic.

Your analogies need a lot more work.

What you still fail to understand is that, first and foremost, you need relevant and verifiable facts [“the dots”], and not a blend of fact-fiction-opinion, which is how you have been “connecting the dots” or trying to use “loop tests” [as recyclers of your opinion based on a lot of erroneous assumptions ].

This and myriad of irrelevancies. A few examples: poster identity speculations [gisterme, almarst, Wcooper, mazza, and others); unconfirmed biographical details; Casey/Eisenhower promises; your claimed achievements, etc., etc..

cantabb - 12:45pm Oct 3, 2003 EST (# 14265 of 14270)

fredmoore - 10:46am Oct 3, 2003 EST (# 14257 of 14261)

fredmoore - 10:52am Oct 3, 2003 EST (# 14258 of 14261)

Still smartiung under, I see.

This mandate, logically speking, leaves the door open to a wide range of relevant multidisiplinary scientific approaches to DEFENSE.

“[M]andate” ? “DEFENSE,” primarily of USA [and allies] IF the missiles alone can provide it !

To you, most of the rshow55 stuff has also been “relevant” here -- although rshow55 himself admitted that, except for 20% (quite generous), the rest could not be relevant.

Did you see any multidisciplinary “scientific” approach -- to “defense” – in rshow’s posts, or had it in your own posts so far ?

As I pointed out the single question 'Is milatarised space inevitable?' alone, makes KAEP a relevant topic.

So, IF militarized space is NOT “inevitable” [lot of people have long doubted if it could even serve the intended purpose], then how specifically does KAEP [Kyoto Alternate Energy Protocol] help in US “defense” [that ‘missiles’ were supposed to have provided] ? And it relevance here ?

“As [you] pointed out” ? What ?

Your gradual backsliding to your own schoolyard tactics of personal taunts shows all on this forum that I have touched a raw nerve. It highlights your hipocracy. It makes your continued presence on this forum laughable (unless you post on topic of course).

Can’t you do anything BUT parroting what you’ve been told ? “Schoolyard tactics,” “raw nerve,” “laughable.” Etc.

Obviously, you can’t see or acknowledge that it has been YOU, and you alone, using as I pointed out quite a few times already, “school yard tactics” —-- right from your first post about me, and continuing. Pointing out the way the forum has been abused DID, as I also said, “raw nerve” [obviously, yours included]. And the ‘logic’ [IF I could be forgiven for its inappropriateness re; your and rshow’s case], has, I also mentioned a few times, nothing but “laughable.”

“Gradual backsliding” ? “hipocracy” ? Words that reflect your pique and your continued school yard behavior -- nothing, as usuial, to do with the reality, quite apparent in your exchanges.

It makes your continued presence on this forum laughable (unless you post on topic of course).

Really ? Just after 2-weeks ?

And what do you have to say for yourself and rshow55 carrying out the irrelevance-fest all this time ? Did you ever think of asking rshow to focus on topic or KAEP ? Did YOU, yourself, try to do that -- BEFORE I asked you to ?

Why this sudden interest in ON-topic posting ? And trying to make KAEP "relevant" to the topic [missile defense] ?

Mission complete!

Really ?

(5 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense