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 (14672 previous messages)

lchic - 02:47pm Oct 8, 2003 EST (# 14673 of 14684)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

The first handshake looked stiff and awkward, but after well over an hour of talks they came out smiling with Mr Bush inviting the Russian leader to visit his ranch in Texas.

Mr Bush described their meeting as straightforward and effective.

He said it was time to move beyond Cold War attitudes, away from mutually assured destruction towards mutually earned respect.

"I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straight forward and trustworthy and we had a very good dialogue.

"I was able to get a sense of his soul.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1392791.stm

lchic - 02:59pm Oct 8, 2003 EST (# 14674 of 14684)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

USA | ""public trust in the media has collapsed since the mid-1970s, when around seven in 10 Americans said they had confidence in TV and newspaper outlets.

"This perhaps reflected public approval of the news media's role in uncovering the Watergate abuses of power," suggested Gallup.

Today, a little over half of Americans have a "great deal or fair amount" of confidence in the news media, which is less trusted than any of the three branches of government.

http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/story/0,7493,1058680,00.html

lchic - 03:03pm Oct 8, 2003 EST (# 14675 of 14684)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

CNN's star reporter, Christiane Amanpour, said her own network was "intimidated" by the Bush administration in its coverage of the war in Iraq.

She said CNN had been "muzzled" by a combination of the White House and the high-profile success of Fox News.

http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/story/0,7493,1058680,00.html

lchic - 03:11pm Oct 8, 2003 EST (# 14676 of 14684)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

"" Harper's magazine publisher John MacArthur, that same image of U.S. military victory is also indicative of a propaganda campaign being waged by the Bush administration.

"It was absolutely a photo-op created for (U.S. President George W.) Bush's re-election campaign commercials," MacArthur said in an interview. "CNN, MSNBC and Fox swallowed it whole."

http://www.tjm.org/articles/msg00095.html

jorian319 - 03:15pm Oct 8, 2003 EST (# 14677 of 14684)
"Statements on frequently important subjects are interesting." -rshow55

Ooooh lookie - more Guardian crap from the guardian of The Guardian. Disgusting.

Will,

Re: signatures, I don't think it would do to just have some kind of "hot" nosecone separate at boost. It would lack key features like superhot trail of gasses etc. You'd have to have actual "live" burning rockets, which would be difficult (but not impossible) to accomplish.

I think the bottom line is that the advantage goes to the attacker if all else is equal. In the case of the USA, all else is not likely to be equal.

FTR, I think there is much greater threat from a "suitcase nuke" or cargo-container nuke than from a missile-borne one.

cantabb - 03:20pm Oct 8, 2003 EST (# 14678 of 14684)

lchic - 02:33pm Oct 8, 2003 EST (# 14671 of 14677)

May be that world leader's 'dogs' are key to world peace ...

lchic - 02:40pm Oct 8, 2003 EST (# 14672 of 14677)

lchic - 02:59pm Oct 8, 2003 EST (# 14674 of 14677)

U> SA | ""public trust in the media has collapsed since the mid-1970s, ...

lchic - 03:03pm Oct 8, 2003 EST (# 14675 of 14676)

CNN's star reporter, Christiane Amanpour, said her own network was "intimidated" by the Bush administration...

lchic - 03:11pm Oct 8, 2003 EST (# 14676 of 14676)

"" Harper's magazine publisher John MacArthur, that same image of U.S. military victory is also indicative of a propaganda campaign being waged by the Bush administration.

Thes unsolicited postings: Nothing to do with MD or related issues.

"It got understood and exposed"

More Messages Recent Messages (6 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Your Preferences

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