New York Times Forums
The New York Times

Home
Job Market
Real Estate
Automobiles
News
International
National
Washington
Business
Technology
Science
Health
Sports
New York Region
Education
Weather
Obituaries
NYT Front Page
Corrections
Opinion
Editorials/Op-Ed
Readers' Opinions


Features
Arts
Books
Movies
Travel
Dining & Wine
Home & Garden
Fashion & Style
Crossword/Games
Cartoons
Magazine
Week in Review
Multimedia
College
Learning Network
Services
Archive
Classifieds
Book a Trip
Personals
Theater Tickets
Premium Products
NYT Store
NYT Mobile
E-Cards & More
About NYTDigital
Jobs at NYTDigital
Online Media Kit
Our Advertisers
Member_Center
Your Profile
E-Mail Preferences
News Tracker
Premium Account
Site Help
Privacy Policy
Newspaper
Home Delivery
Customer Service
Electronic Edition
Media Kit
Community Affairs
Text Version
TipsGo to Advanced Search
Search Options divide
go to Member Center Log Out
  

 [F] 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.


Earliest Messages Previous Messages Recent Messages Outline (14648 previous messages)

cantabb - 12:15pm Oct 8, 2003 EST (# 14649 of 14663)

klsanford0 - 11:10am Oct 8, 2003 EST (# 14632 of 14638)

“Ignore” is a personal preference. One size doesn’t fit ALL.

But constantly suggesting or recommending the same for others as THE solution, as some tend to do, seems presumptuous to me -- besides being annoyingly condescending [Oh, you’re new, you’ll understand later what I’m taking about etc] .

Doesn't it depend on how we individually handle a debate? Some of us can’t suffer some posters as others do, may have or tried to. And, some of us seem to know how best to consign posts and posters where rightfully belong.

It's strange and ironic, but I’ve seen some of the same posters, now advising “ignore”, engaged here and other forums in long drawn out debates on things of least interest to many others. They preferred then NOT to “ignore” for some reason. They can “ignore” the posters, they can “ignore” the Forum.

In some situations, the path of least resistance may NOT be the best path. To schieve a desired result. In this case, you'll see more of what you did not want to see -- wildly proliferating weeds !

Have safe travel.

rshow55 - 12:17pm Oct 8, 2003 EST (# 14650 of 14663)
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.

Easy. But still - the closer you are . . .

To hit a target with a bullet - you must have position, angle, and range right. Time - to days - minutes - hours - second - isn't so critical.

To hit a bullet with a bullet - you have all the problems above - they are all more critical - and time resolution is far, far, far more critical.

We need to learn to make peace - though, while we're at it - we may need defensive weapons that work pretty well.

rshow55 - 12:18pm Oct 8, 2003 EST (# 14651 of 14663)
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.

Damme if these posts don't seem worth another loop through . . .

14059 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.Hby2b7cSLYO.1186709@.f28e622/15765

14060 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.Hby2b7cSLYO.1186709@.f28e622/15766

14061 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.Hby2b7cSLYO.1186709@.f28e622/15767

For stable end games - people and groups have to be workably clear on these key questions.

How do they disagree (agree) about logical structure ?

How do they disagree (agree) about facts ?

How do they disagree (agree) about questions of how much different things matter ?

How do they differ in their team identifications ?

Odds are good that if the patterns of agreement (or disagreement) are STABLE and KNOWN they can be decently accomodated.

But if these patterns of agreement or disagreement are NOT known - then situations that involve disagreements are inherently unstable.

( also N!herently unstable )

That may be an "old and obvious" result. But an important one that people don't seem to know (or seem to forget) when it most needs to be remembered. It may be a simple thing to know. But useful. Knowledge of how to tie your shoes is a humble thing. But useful in its way, too.

600 plus posts later - - those things still seem right - still seem to be things people have a tought time remembering when it matters.

13655-6 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.Hby2b7cSLYO.1186709@.f28e622/15358 from about 1000 posts back bears rereading, too.

If people are scandalized, and panic - and run around blinded with passion - every time somebody calls somebody else a ahem "knowing falsifier" - then we're in a hell of a mess.

The incidence of more or less conscious deception - and obviously repressed fiction is something like 10-20 times what people are admitting.

And people are stumped - in all sorts of obvious and stupid ways - some of them bloody - because they're missing that.

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

jorian319 - 12:18pm Oct 8, 2003 EST (# 14652 of 14663)
"Statements on frequently important subjects are interesting." -rshow55

Using boost phase really doesn't remove the advantage of the attacker, it would seem

Maybe not "remove", but it does place considerable additional burden. In-flight decoys can be simple objects, but launch/boost decoys would have to emit credible IR signatures - a very expensive per-unit undertaking.

Oh crap - now I've done it... never should have mentioned MD in this place. Forgive me all - I forgot it was verboten.

More Messages Recent Messages (11 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Your Preferences

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  / Missile Defense