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 - 07:47am Oct 21, 2003 EST (# 15319 of 15323)
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: NB: Can anyone at NYT, named or not, verify any of rshow55's statements and claims ?

15244-5 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.ore2bPdXQ3O.3816080@.f28e622/16957 is partly on that point

I've been perfectly happy for people to choose to "call me Ishmael" for a long time. http://www.mrshowalter.net/CaseyRel.html

The story I like best about me, in this regard, is that I'm just a guy who got interested in logic, and military issues. A guy who got concerned about nuclear danger, and related military balances, and tried to do something about it. Based on what he knew - with no access to special information of any kind, he made an effort to keep the world from blowing up, using the best literary devices he could fashion, consistent with what he knew or could guess.

If you choose to "call me Ishmael" - the things that matter most that have been discussed on this thread stand unchanged - especially the fact of the thread itself - what was said - and when.

There are some very good questions - including

"Who does he (she) think he is?

and

"What did he (she) know, and when did he know it?

They apply to many people - certainly including me. Not only to me.

I think many would agree with this:

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 ( Cantabb ) report to.

Although I am making an assumption, Cantabb - that you report to someone.

Cantabb , you're a master at picking fights. It isn't hard to pick fights. It is technically hard to figure out how to avoid them.

I'm trying to do that. On my background - if the NYT hasn't done any investigations on that - they've had plenty of opportunity to do so. This thread offers a big corpus of things that can be checked and cross-checked. And I'm available. I'm also available to the government.

cantabb - 07:56am Oct 21, 2003 EST (# 15320 of 15323)

rshow55 - 06:31am Oct 21, 2003 EST (# 15315 of 15318)

Here's a fact - a fact that isn't so important to know if explosive fighting without end is the objective - but a fact that is important to know if stable resolutions that pass reasonable tests of fairness are to be achieved……… It is easy to use words as weapons to keep that from happening.

Pretty basic stuff, Mr. Rogers !

I believe that this thread is now, and has been for a while, the largest interconnected corpus devoted to negotiation practices in the world - or at least one of very few. It includes some probably distinguished, if anonymous, posters. …I'm hopeful that the work it represents will be worthwhile - in the public interest, and from the viewpoint of The New York Times

Perhaps “the largest interconnected corpus devoted to” unending self-referencing trivia and personal problems – NOTHING to do with MD.

I've done a great deal of work on this thread, with lchic , since Sept 25, 2000 - ………At that time, I thought a great deal had been accomplished, and more could be. There was so much effort - on this thread and elsewhere, that hope seemed reasonable, along with plenty of concern. The world changed with on 9/11/2000. Here's the Front Page of NYT on the Web - September 12, 2001 -

More of the same, self-references and links: your senseless re-hash.

This thread was set up about Missile Defense - but it has evolved to involve more, with plenty of assistance from the NYT. This thread has been based on the "fiction" that staffed organizations were looking at it - and has prototyped patterns that staffed organizations could use. Sometimes I've hoped some staffs have looked at it.

Wrong.

In fact, it has disintegrated considerably, thanks to you and your 'world asset'! And, for the past 3 years, it has been serving as a personal dumpster for you and the “world asset” on anything and everything. Your continued abuse of the posting privileges on the NYT forums.

rshow55 - 06:35am Oct 21, 2003 EST (# 15316 of 15318)

In 1503 Cantab chose to pick a fight about a phrase I used. ["If YOU are “to be able to function” ? More insinuations: cantabb]

Was pointing to your insinuations !

I need accomodations that permit me to function -and know a lot about what my needs are. If that sort of thing is denied in a negotiation - nothing can possibly close in anything but a fight - or something like rape.

Nonsense !

We all have personal needs, but we don’t expect NYT or anyone to fulfill them for us. Why do you think it should be anyone’s concern—EXCEPT yourself ?

You can always pick a fight. For any stable accomodation about anything at all complicated - people have - within limits - and for particular purposes - to choose not to fight. And be prepared to accomodate the needs of the people involved.

No one else other than yourself is responsible for providing you the “accomodation” you need or seek.

Otherwise, explosive fights have to be expected. They are not "bad luck" - they are foreseeable. Masters of the short term solution - especially masters of the ultra-short sound bit solution may miss that - and doing so, they guarantee bad results for themselves and people who rely on them.

What’s this obsession with “fights” ? Returning to your own teen-age fascination ?

I didn't finish [work, mentioned in a rshow55 post yesterday] - and I'll be continuing. It is hard to do "under fire." I think the proposal will be good enough so that it will work as a model that the Bush administration - and other institutions and nations involved with the Korean problems - could actually learn from in ways that could be helpful. If they are actually willing to learn.

Delusional !

“Under fire” ? Asking you to focus, and a

(3 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense