New York Times Forums
The New York Times

Home
Job Market
Real Estate
Automobiles
News
International
National
Washington
Business
Technology
Science
Health
Sports
New York Region
Education
Weather
Obituaries
NYT Front Page
Corrections
Opinion
Editorials/Op-Ed
Readers' Opinions


Features
Arts
Books
Movies
Travel
Dining & Wine
Home & Garden
Fashion & Style
Crossword/Games
Cartoons
Magazine
Week in Review
Multimedia
College
Learning Network
Services
Archive
Classifieds
Book a Trip
Personals
Theater Tickets
Premium Products
NYT Store
NYT Mobile
E-Cards & More
About NYTDigital
Jobs at NYTDigital
Online Media Kit
Our Advertisers
Member_Center
Your Profile
E-Mail Preferences
News Tracker
Premium Account
Site Help
Privacy Policy
Newspaper
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 (15485 previous messages)

cantabb - 04:47pm Oct 23, 2003 EST (# 15486 of 15492)

rshow55 - 04:32pm Oct 23, 2003 EST (# 15483 of 15484)

Incredible, wasn't it, that the TIMES seems to have gotten almarst lined up for me to talk to - and stood by for this: Could it be that nobody noticed?

Could it be that no body cares ?

There are people besides me ( manjumicha and fredmoore among them ) - who doubt that this thread remains as an oversight.

Forgetting something ? Your "world asset"?

The existence of this thread is not so much the issue as is YOUR continued abuse of this thread.

lchic - 04:55pm Oct 23, 2003 EST (# 15487 of 15492)
ultimately TRUTH outs : TRUTH has to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong foundation

In #15484 Cantabb uses the royal 'we' ... could it be he's from the Siamese Royal Family?

lchic - 05:00pm Oct 23, 2003 EST (# 15488 of 15492)
ultimately TRUTH outs : TRUTH has to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong foundation

GOOGLE | www.google.com | Gaming theory extension Nash

MOOTER | http://mooter.com/:8080/moot | Gaming theory extension Nash

cantabb - 05:03pm Oct 23, 2003 EST (# 15489 of 15492)

lchic - 04:55pm Oct 23, 2003 EST (# 15487 of 15487)

In #15484 Cantabb uses the royal 'we' ... could it be he's from the Siamese Royal Family?

Take your pick: Collective "we" or editorial (as rshow55 called one) "we" !

Ahem, YOUR "ignore" is showing :-)

cantabb - 05:04pm Oct 23, 2003 EST (# 15490 of 15492)

lchic - 05:00pm Oct 23, 2003 EST (# 15488 of 15489)

GOOGLE | www.google.com | Gaming theory extension Nash

MOOTER | http://mooter.com/:8080/moot | Gaming theory extension Nash

Nash-complex !

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