New York Times Forums
The New York Times

Job Market
Real Estate
New York Region
NYT Front Page
Readers' Opinions

Dining & Wine
Home & Garden
Fashion & Style
Week in Review
Learning Network
Book a Trip
Theater Tickets
Premium Products
NYT Store
NYT Mobile
E-Cards & More
About NYTDigital
Jobs at NYTDigital
Online Media Kit
Our Advertisers
Your Profile
E-Mail Preferences
News Tracker
Premium Account
Site Help
Privacy Policy
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 (15017 previous messages)

rshow55 - 05:21pm Oct 14, 2003 EST (# 15018 of 15024)
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.

I think getting this solar energy project done would be worth more to the US national security than anything that can possibly happen in Iraq.





The process of generating and perfecting such solutions - and checking them - is clearer than it used to be - because of work lchic and I did together - especially this

I was asked to put the process of invention on a clearer basis - and lchic and I have done so.

Problem is that often questions of "what's fair" have to be handled that are now not well addressed.

Because some solutions are inherently large scale. Not necessarily inherently complicated - compared to a lot of other things. But inherently large scale.

Including simple things - like the solution of a steel wheel on a steel rail - a technical answer that has been dominant and stable for 150+ years now. We need more solutions like that.

And lchic and I have taken big steps toward getting them.

The barriers to these solutions now are far more social than technical.

rshow55 - 05:24pm Oct 14, 2003 EST (# 15019 of 15024)
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. price - to the government - and innocent bystanders - something of the order of 40 million cost - maybe a little less - so far.

The intention was to solve multi, multi billion dollar problems, and make the world safer - at relatively very small cost.

Getting ideas worked out - prototyped - and ready for large scale organizations.

Which could then work the solutions into the system smootly - and making a profit doing so.

At a few stages, it takes not only logic -but some involvement from a nation state.

rshow55 - 05:28pm Oct 14, 2003 EST (# 15020 of 15024)
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.

If I had my security problems resolved well enough so that I could really work with administrative organizations - and interested nation states - I wouldn't need anything but non-interference ( real noninterference ) from the U.S. government.

Debriefing, now, wouldn't be necessary.

Last year - I got a verbal statement that the government had " no interest " in my work. I thought that was stupid at the time - but if I had that assurance in writing - or in a way that worked in administration of real organizations - I could work.

Without that, as a practical matter, all I can do is talk.

bluestar23 - 05:33pm Oct 14, 2003 EST (# 15021 of 15024)


"trying to gloss over the concerns Russia has about the US gaining a significant strategic advantage."

There are no real concerns in Russian leadership, Cooper, just among some dinosaurs in the Ministry of Defence.....Putin does not see the United States as an enemy of Russia ( I've just finished reading David Remnick's [New Yorker article]) on Putin, and he will never launch against the USA....Russia is not a threat and have said they retarget their missiles. Bush's system may indeed protect against smaller numbers of missiles, a more likely scenario....

lchic - 05:34pm Oct 14, 2003 EST (# 15022 of 15024)
TRUTH outs ultimately : TRUTH has to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong foundation

The word 'pavement' registered on the Cantabbulator

input - labour : machine + $$$$

process - dig, smooth surface, lay concrete, secure until dry

output/outcome - enchancement of pedestrian locomotion / (wages)

Value - a community resource for 'common good'

More Messages Recent Messages (2 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Your Preferences

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