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 (15818 previous messages)

rshow55 - 04:01pm Oct 28, 2003 EST (# 15819 of 15842)
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.

Or a weaker request - for example a request for NYT to identify which posters are NYT employees or officers - or controlled by them - and which are not?

cantabb - 04:06pm Oct 28, 2003 EST (# 15820 of 15842)

rshow55 - 03:30pm Oct 28, 2003 EST (# 15814 of 15817)

For the amount of work and expense the NYT has gone to keeping me down - you could have solved my key problems long ago. And they are problems a lot broader than my own interest.

Since you have NOT substantiated any of this, it's hard for me to imagine anyone (except lchic & fredmoore) accepting any of this -- just one-sided personal version of your personal situation WITH nothing from the other side !

rshow55 - 04:07pm Oct 28, 2003 EST (# 15821 of 15842)
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.

15667-9 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.vTlPbdpASbQ.5427816@.f28e622/17380 seem simple enough - and worth repeating.

Here's a basic standard:

" What would this look like, and how would it be judged, if it was written up, in detail, in THE NEW YORK TIMES ? "

Not that it would be. But there are community standards. I think everybody involved here wants to meet those standards. I know that I do.

wrcooper - 04:09pm Oct 28, 2003 EST (# 15822 of 15842)

Inre: http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.vTlPbdpASbQ.5427816@.f28e622/17512

bluestar23

The link also made clear that

A) Sensor technology is not ready for deployment, and

B) GBXs will not be able to discriminate certain decoys.

Neither will infrared sensors be able to discriminate certain decoys from actual warheads, because heat signatures can be easily mimicked with heaters.

The case for the NMD is absurdly weak. The phrase "multi-layered" defense is really a synonym for "every branch of the armed forces stands to get a piece of the NMD pie". Boost phase--Air Force and Navy. Midcourse phase--Air Force. Terminal phase--Army and Air Force. It's a Rube Goldbergian scheme that has not proven itself capable of working at any phase.

The link also included prominent links to the Union of Concerned Scientists and the critical report "Pushing the Limit". Therefore, I am surprised you liked it so much. Basically, it was not a pro-NMD site.

rshow55 - 04:11pm Oct 28, 2003 EST (# 15823 of 15842)
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 - you requote this phrase of mine:

For the amount of work and expense the NYT has gone to keeping me down - you could have solved my key problems long ago. And they are problems a lot broader than my own interest.

That's simply true. Cantabb, will you deny again, for the record, as you have before, that you work for The New York Times ?

rshow55 - 04:11pm Oct 28, 2003 EST (# 15824 of 15842)
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.

Jorian , will you deny again, for the record, as you have before, that you work for The New York Times ?

cantabb - 04:12pm Oct 28, 2003 EST (# 15825 of 15842)

rshow55 - 03:59pm Oct 28, 2003 EST (# 15818 of 15821)

That's common ground. But there are things that the NYT knows.

SO ? That's between you & NYT (even if there's any evidence of it) !

What's that got to with this thread ?

More Messages Recent Messages (17 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Your Preferences

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  / Missile Defense