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 - 03:07pm Oct 16, 2003 EST (# 15180 of 15184)

rshow55 - 01:30pm Oct 16, 2003 EST (# 15177 of 15178)

Cantabb, the Sulzberger point is interesting. Though I wonder how much authority you have to raise it.

Forget about me and my 'authority'!

It is YOUR problem. Since, for some reason, you keep referring to some 'undefined' mutual obligations -- the least anybody could do is to suggest -- if that wasn't apparent, as the case here was -- to take it up with the person you think can set you straight. And SPARE THIS THREAD !

That was a long time ago - and I didn't hang onto the address. Now, though I'd be afraid - Sulzberger has a lot of rank - I'd be honored to contact him. Or someone with a name who represented him - knowing how valuable Sulzberger's time is.

Try again. Afterall, you're working on world peace. Lives are at stake !

But the grammer of the situation would be a good deal easier if someone at the NYT, with a name, would call me. Or call someone (for instance, at the UW ) who knew me, and who'd call me.

That's too circuitous. Remember, it's the world peace and lives that you think are at stake here.

I think things could work out in ways that the average reader of The New York Times would find comfortable - and consistent with the national interest.

Again, NOTHING to do with "the average reader of" NYT.

I think what an average NYT reader (and of this Forum) would be "comfortable with" is to see you stop the abuse of this Forum for your personal interests. That's all. And good luck in your 'discussions' with Salzburger & NYT.

I would be honored to have things work out in a way that gave the NYT satisfaction - if they were compatible with my reasonable function.

That [NYT's "satisfaction"], you should find out from NYT itself.

rshow55 - 02:09pm Oct 16, 2003 EST (# 15178 of 15178)

If the average reader of The New York Times - in possession of the facts - would conclude that I should go to jail - - - well, I'd be willing to risk that.

Leave the poor "average reader of The New York Times" ALONE !

The Average NYT reader is NOT going to "conclude" whether or NOT anybody "should go to jail."

But there would need to be a situation with some chance of closure - under conditions where the standard assumption is that everybody's afraid enough, angry enough - so that things are unstable.

Most us don't even know the situation or the "closure" you are looking for. It's really no body else's business but yours (may be lchic's too). I don't think "everybody's afraid." No body knows about ewverybody.

I know I'm afraid. For reasons that ought to be obvious.

May be -- but that doesn't mean "everybody." As to your "reasons" -- again, I don't think that concerns other posters [Besides, since the details and the reasons etc were never clearly stated, "ought to" sounds presumptuous of you].

I don't want to go into a situation that seems sure to go wrong - or to involve unacceptable risks to anybody involved. Or a situation too likely to be unstable. Everybody posting on this thread - without exception - has some trust - and some distrust of everybody else. Which seems proper to me.

No body really knows the details of your situation or the risks involved or imagined, except, I assume, lchic. I certainly am NOT interested in your or anyone's personal matters.

I know some other posters thought fit to have a face-to-face with or call you. May be you "ought to" contact them to re-explore the situation.

Posters are posters with user-names -- here to post their comments, or respond to them. Trust/Distrust is again personal preference, like many other things.

bluestar23 - 04:00pm Oct 16, 2003 EST (# 15181 of 15184)

rshow55:

"But the grammer of the situation would be a good deal easier if someone..."

Knew how to spell "grammar" so as not to look ridiculous...

rshow55 - 04:35pm Oct 16, 2003 EST (# 15182 of 15184)
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.

Sorry, Bluestar.

I appreciate cantabb's suggestions, and respect his concerns.

I'll be preparing a FedEx packet that I'll send to the NYT New York City office - adressed to Sulzberger - not that he'll read it. It will arrive Saturday. I'll try to set things out in a way that I think is reasonable - and in a way I hope the Sulzberger subordinate who turns out to look at it also finds reasonable.

I'll take the time to check for spelling.

Cantabb , a appreciate the thoughtfulness of your suggestions, and I'm thinking about them.

I'm in the Madison phone book.

bluestar23 - 04:39pm Oct 16, 2003 EST (# 15183 of 15184)

WRC.:

I think it's a fallacy that if I just read and fully comprehend your self-selected links that I am honour-bound to arrive at your own conclusions. This seems to be the logic of your insistence on diligently reading every one of your links. ( You might want to remember that posters are not likely to get bogged down in demands to read ten or twelve extensive links..try one or two...)

You do have some links on both sides of the question. However, I do not beleive that MD has been now conclusively proven to be undoable, which seems to be your ultimate formulation.

(1 following message)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense