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 - 10:05am Oct 23, 2003 EST (# 15467 of 15471)

rshow55 08:20am Oct 23, 2003 EST (# 15456 of 15464)

More nonsensical reiterations from you:

Cantabb says "spare this forum."

Lchic and I are trying to explain something vital for peace and prosperity - something that has screwed up much too often. How to construct and trim stable oscillatory solutions - where nothing else can possibly work - and where these solutions can do well - if people take their time and fit them carefully. We've also been trying, since September 2000 - to find ways to get me out of "house arrest" and in a situation where I could work . Sometimes "It is easier to get forgiveness than it is to get permission .

You can’t even answer what you have been doing here on MD forum for the past 3 years.

What in the world you think you (& world asset lchic) can “explain something vital for peace and prosperity - something that has screwed up much too often” ? With all your incoherent logorrhea and lchic’s faux-Zen ! And, don't you have to first get out of your imagined problems, "house arrest," and the angst?

If things I'm trying to demonstrate could work between me and The New York Times - formally analogous things might be possible in negotiations that now cannot get to closure between nations.

Again YOUR personal matters are of NO relevance to MD. Why should they be of any significance at all to negotiations “between nations.”

There's an interesting thing in the sparring between me and Cantabb - I appreciate it - and I hope people interested in negotiations notice it. It has become increasingly clear that we agree on a number of basic facts and relations - that we both want a "solution" - though we have differences about what "solution" would be - and that some things between us oscillate on a small time scale - but have an average stability over time. We're "dithering" in several senses - including the formal servomechanism sense.

I don’t think we agree on much of anything. Our thinking, logic and styles are radically different, as seen here.

You present NOTHING that's worth a debate, even in its loosest sense. ALL I've been is to consign your comments to where they rightly belong. And, mercifully ASAP.

That's a lesson I've been working to teach - explicitly, and by example.

From what we see here, you are in NO position to teach anyone anything. Unless it's the teaching of highly repetitious incoherence. Any takers ?

This thread on MD is NO place for your ramblings on your own personal situation.

rshow55 - 08:27am Oct 23, 2003 EST (# 15457 of 15464)

Often - in places where oscillations are occurring in a situation - it makes sense to sort out and ……….which is expensive to both the TIMES and the nation in many ways.

Meaningless generalities. And references to more irrelevancies.

rshow55 - 08:51am Oct 23, 2003 EST (# 15461 of 15465)

Milton Eisenhower was a wheel in the censorship apparatus of World War II - the NYT has a long corporate memory………..There are messes - including messes at the TIMES - that ought to be cleaned up. I don't see why it isn't done - and done gracefully.

More unsubstantiated claims on personal matters. NOT pertinent here. Neither are your 'contacts' [claimed without an iota of evidence, except what you say. That's not even 'hearsay' !]

rshow55 - 09:15am Oct 23, 2003 EST (# 15463 of 15465)

2064 …. seems coherent enough, it is from a while ago, and in includes this: " How, given the rules of security laws……..

“Coherent enough” to YOU ! To you EVERYTHING you say is “coherent,” just like everything drags in here is “relevant’ to MD.

The rest is MORE of the same meaningless off-topic wanderings.

rshow55 - 09:24am Oct 23, 2003 EST (# 15464 of 15465)

I'm going to quote some things about Price's agreements with Roosevelt…..I want to take a little time thinking about t

cantabb - 10:06am Oct 23, 2003 EST (# 15468 of 15471)

rshow55 - 09:24am Oct 23, 2003 EST (# 15464 of 15465)

I'm going to quote some things about Price's agreements with Roosevelt…..I want to take a little time thinking about the presentation - and this is a chance for other posters of state their indignation about the "off topic" posting I'm preparing, if they wish.

More off topic material. Don’t even bother !

(3 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense