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.

fredmoore - 08:30pm Oct 3, 2003 EST (# 14278 of 14284)

cantabb - 12:45pm Oct 3, 2003 EST (# 14265 of 14273)

More rambling 'in-denial' Schoolyard nonsense!

YAWN!

Mission complete!

PS As for: "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 ? "

It's a pity this question is so obviously just rhetorical. It's answering would give you some insight into why missile defence systems alone will not provide security for any nation in a future world.

If you perchance 'wake up' any time, the answers are in my posts going back to ... not the last two weeks (another of Cantabb's numerous 'in-denial' mistakes for which he will never apologise or even acknowledge) ... but to fredmoore - 09:28pm Jun 18, 2003 EST (# 12580 of 14277).

If you ever show some maturity I could be persuded to discuss the issues involved. However that would be like trying to give Mme Defarge a humanities lesson ... n'est pas?

cantabb - 09:43pm Oct 3, 2003 EST (# 14279 of 14284)

rshow55 - 08:06pm Oct 3, 2003 EST (# 14274 of 14278)

How long are you going to keep dodging the questions I asked ?

None of what you posted so far, numerous links included, serves as an ANSWER !

Cantabb , the intensity of your emotion interests me.

Just answer, if you can, the questions asked. Your attempts to wriggle out and rationalize are pathetically inept.

It’s your obsessive mindless recycling, that is unlikely to interest ME or many other readers. Because it is NOT a substitute for an answer to straightforward questions asked, repeatedly.

Forget your psychoanalysis of yourself & other posters. You’re NOT qualified.

I'm not sure there is anything I could say that you'd agree with.

Because you’ve NOT substantiated anything you’ve posted. And, you seem unwilling to, when asked specifically abiout it.

You've got a receipe for picking a fight about anything.

You keep evading the questions and can’t substantiate anything you say and claim, and you try to blame me and others for asking pointed questions ? Nonsense.

Your links are the re-re-re-hash of your oversimplistic comments on published information. Nothing significant on topic to speak of, NO indication of what you have been working on for this long, and NO substantiation of your claims.

Since you have NO access to any privileged information, and most of us have access to he same published articles as much as you, what’s it that you think have specifically accomplished, on-topic, using the information ? NOTHING SPECIFIC or significant to speak of, other than public airing of your own personal situations.

To quote your dedicated collaborator, lchic : "It got understood and exposed."

Statistics and logic are linked. Do you deny that?

Aren’t BOTH based on and derived from relevant facts ? Where are yours ? Facts, Not a homogenized blend of opinions-fiction-facts.

cantabb - 09:50pm Oct 3, 2003 EST (# 14280 of 14284)

lchic - 08:17pm Oct 3, 2003 EST (# 14276 of 14278)

Suggestion for Cantabb

Go read the thread from post one. Read all posts.

Suggestion for you: SLOP doesn’t take long to figure out. Except for those who can't tell the difference.

NOTE: “It got understood and exposed.”

Catch you later .... much later ... later still ... later ... Wake-up Cantabb ... Keep reading .Sometimes one wonders if Cantabb has read the thread ... ?

See ABOVE.

He [rshow55] seems pathetically unable to focus or answer the questions asked. May be YOU, his loyal collaborator and dedicated follower, can : DO you know WHAT specifically has he (supposedly with YOU) been doing for the past 2+ years, and can you substantiate even a fraction of the claims he has made on the Forum ?

Preferences Ignore Cantabb

WHY DON’T YOU ? Why watch the unseemly dismantling ? To rephrase you: Do you still believe your "emperor" has clothes on ?

lchic - 08:19pm Oct 3, 2003 EST (# 14277 of 14278)

RS you were saying:http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.TdmqbMuPL1Y.413420@.f28e622/15984

See MY response, if interested.

Or else, keep following your pied piper !

(4 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense