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 - 03:52am Oct 21, 2003 EST (# 15312 of 15316)
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.

Cantabb: Had rshow55 DID have any hint of familiarity (much less an affiliation) with any of our intelligence agencies, as he claims he has had, he should have known that they don't talk publicly (or through NYT forums) about their contacts, personnel or projects.

For any rule, there have to be exceptions - and in my particular case, I've been doing just exactly what Casey suggested I do - and for good reasons. And though the costs have been higher than I'd expected by a great deal - and the ugliness greater - and the irresponsible uses of power by the NYT much greater than I'd expected - it remains true that a great deal seems to have worked.

I have, at least, conveyed a great deal of information to NYT staff - and that's an excellent group to communicate with, to do the job assigned to me. Casey thought so, and both Eisenhowers would have thought so.

Some things should not be secret - just as some things should be.

The existence of many contacts between the NYT and the intelligence agencies is a part of the public record often referred to in public by the TIMES - and Times employees - in print, on television, and elsewhere.

If you look at the record of this thread - I've been very careful about discussing anything about contacts, personnel, or projects - until, after long attempts to avoid them, I've made exceptions in the national interest that I've had an obligation (and the detailed knowledge) to make.

Generally quite limited exceptions - and always for reasons that have seemed to be compelling.

Under circumstances of paradigm conflict - of denial - of repression in every psychological sense (and some other senses, too) - and with the stakes for the national welfare very high - I've been justified in what I've done.

The NYT has aided and abetted my work to such an extent that we are in nothing like a "simple" adversarial position - no matter who you report to.

I'm quite sure that "the average reader of The New York Times" would agree about that, by now.

Well before this http://www.mrshowalter.net/PutinBriefing.html - and in any event by the time this http://www.mrshowalter.net/PutinBriefing.html was posted - this thread had long ceased to be "just another thread" - to the NYT or to a lot of other people.

This thread is exceptional in size, in content, in subject matter, in quality - in the form of very many of its postings - http://www.mrshowalter.net/Sequential.htm - and some reasonable exceptions need to be made to accomodate the case. In human decency - in the national interest - and in the corporate interest of The New York Times, as well.

I'm working to sort things out in the national interest - in my own - and in a way that should be very consistent with the reasonable interests of The New York Times - and you aren't making it easier. In my own judgement - you're serving the interests of the New York Times very poorly.

lchic - 06:15am Oct 21, 2003 EST (# 15313 of 15316)
ultimately TRUTH outs : TRUTH has to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong foundation

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/hydrogen/index.html

(3 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense