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.

rshow55 - 11:26am Oct 13, 2003 EST (# 14871 of 14882)
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.

Some of our problems are logical - and some are emotional . We need to adjust - both logically and emotionally.

Here are summary links on the logical part.

. 1623 http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7b2bd/1792

. 1624 http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7b2bd/1793

We need to grow up some - to use that logic when our emotions blind us. We're at a time where it is dangerous not to. High tech weapons can't solve our problems.

Gisterme asked some very perceptive questions in this fine posting from before 9/11:

http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md6000s/md6237.htm

What can possibly be done without umpires - and without anyone who can be called impartial. Without very many agreed-upon rules, either. The answer has to involve "connecting the dots" at the many coupled levels discussed on this thread.

Beautiful answers can converge. And often do.

And there are good solutions, as well. That oscillate - but work well.

We can make progress. We've been playing some Wizard's Chess here (a good search, "wizard's chess" ) and not everything is going so badly.

cantabb - 12:22pm Oct 13, 2003 EST (# 14872 of 14882)

Re 'Reflection Retreat':

This may have ended a little too soon.

I detect a little hint of MD in the usual rshow-lchic coordination in the last 70 posts, but not without obsessive recycling “loop test” of self-referencing and more of the same woolly thinking with spongy facts. Mr. Rogers’ Rx to world problems.

In that overall context, I’ll address some of the comments about me and matters I had commented on before :

rshow55 - 06:19pm Oct 11, 2003 EST (# 14794 of 14863)

.... from the script of Casablanca … p. 92 - cantabb - are you still "shocked" that discussions about international negotiation are going on here –

NOT really. On the Casablanca discussion --apparently a thread you had initiated -- what I saw was a discussion mostly by you with yourself and lchic. And, on material recycled from NYT.

> Technical issues are interesting - but the most interesting thing about Star Wars is that it persists with so many compelling arguments against it - because our discourse practices are so degenerate.

“Interesting” as the technical/science issues are, the debate here has been highjacked by you into areas nothing to do with these “interesting” aspects.

rshow55 - 08:27pm Oct 11, 2003 EST (# 14800 of 14863)

Bill Casey laughed at this movie - and I liked it, too. Gaily, Gaily (1969 )

SO……..?

If this thread isn't to the advantage of The New York Times - it is the paper's own fault. Or shows the limits of its negotiating skills and imagination.

It’s the abuse of the thread that eats up whatever value it may have had. What “negotiating skills and imagination” do you think a newspaper is supposed to have ? Other than, as in this case, offering a for on-topic discussion ? You, and you alone, have been talking about “negotiating” some thing personal or global – still undefined. The limitations seen and exposed are yours alone.

rshow55 - 03:49pm Oct 12, 2003 EST (# 14831 of 14863)

Anybody who thinks we and the Russians communicate clearly, or can predict each other SHOULD LOOK AT THIS and THINK ABOUT IT .........

This is the situation after nearly half a century of negotiation - gross ambiguity, inconventiently packaged, concerning a key word

Whatever the situation, these comments are laughable given your own woolly ‘ambiguities’ and your communication problems.

rshow55 - 07:00am Oct 13, 2003 EST (# 14865 of 14866)

Jorian: Consider these 'deep thoughts' for your tag-line:

Some of our problems are logical - and some are emotional . We need to adjust - both logically and emotionally.

We need to grow up some - to use that logic when our emotions blind us. We're at a time where it is dangerous not to. High tech weapons can't solve our problems.

-----------------------------------

Here are summary links on the logical part. [1623&1624, Guardian talk]

What logic in this “logical part” ?

rshow55 - 11:26am Oct 13, 2003 EST (# 14871 of 14871)

Some of our problems are logical - and some are emotional . We need to adjust - both logically and emotionally.

Here are summary links on the logical part. 1623 http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7b2bd/1792 1624 http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7b2bd/1793

We need to grow up some - to use that logic when our emotions blind us. We're at a time where it is dangerous not to. High tech weapons can't solve our problems.

See my comments above.

Beautiful answers can converge. And often do.

Ugly answers can also 'converge'. "And, often do."

And there are good solutions, as well. That oscillate - but work well.

NOt quite a revelation, is it ?

(10 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense