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 - 09:52pm Oct 13, 2003 EST (# 14935 of 14963)

klsanford0: Thanks.

You have to consign things where they rightly belong. ASAP-- not by entertaining it, as has been done for the past 3 years or running away from it. Or else they, run wild -- overwhelm you.

I've watched the forum for some time. So, I have some idea of the 'regulars' involved (including wrcooper) !

klsanford0 - 10:14pm Oct 13, 2003 EST (# 14936 of 14963)

klsanford is leaving the Forum for a while....not to be back for a certain amount of time....

cantabb - 11:09pm Oct 13, 2003 EST (# 14937 of 14963)

klsanford0: Thanks for your participation.

wrcooper - 11:19pm Oct 13, 2003 EST (# 14938 of 14963)

klsanford0

Your statement that the Bush plan is a "done deal" is false. Yes, the Bush administration will try to deploy a system by 2004, but it's an unfinished system, an unworkable system, a flawed system. That's worse than no system at all.

Sorry you're taking off for awhile. Can it be because of your distaste for debating rshow55 et. al.? That's why I left for awhile. It was only after deciding finally to put that entire crew on my "Ignore Posts list" that made it possible for me to return. I think the issue is important and worth debating--it's just that those posters make this forum untenable. It's necessary to cut them out of the loop, and the "Ignore Post" feature makes that possible.

cantabb - 11:26pm Oct 13, 2003 EST (# 14939 of 14963)

lchic - 12:59pm Oct 13, 2003 EST (# 14877 of 14937)

Well said Cantabb .... who's really beefing up this forum and i quote : " ... someone has taken the bull by its horn ... " ….

lchic - 01:50pm Oct 13, 2003 EST (# 14885 of 14937)

Meaty subject ... TRUTH .... (Cantabb asked for more explanation). The meaning of my words on truth will vary according to the outlook of any virtual reader - readers bring themselves to the page. ……….

lchic - 02:02pm Oct 13, 2003 EST (# 14886 of 14937)

Cantabb -- why not meet up with Cooper -- as did Showalter. ….

lchic: Check your "Ignore" function ! Either it is NOT working, or you have decided to look through the peep-hole NOT only to see what Cantabb was saying but also, throwing your own advice to the wind (against your better judgment, perhaps), wanted to post these to his attention.

As you said, "TRUTH outs in the end ........"

:-)

cantabb - 11:31pm Oct 13, 2003 EST (# 14940 of 14963)

wrcooper - 11:19pm Oct 13, 2003 EST (# 14938 of 14939)

(to klsanford0)

Sorry you're taking off for awhile. Can it be because of your distaste for debating rshow55 et. al.? That's why I left for awhile. It was only after deciding finally to put that entire crew on my "Ignore Posts list" that made it possible for me to return. I think the issue is important and worth debating--it's just that those posters make this forum untenable. It's necessary to cut them out of the loop, and the "Ignore Post" feature makes that possible.

Still pushing the same Rx that did not work for you ?

See if "ignoring" things and posters solves the problem ! Never did before. NOT by the way you went about doing it.

(23 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense