![[F]](15929_files/site.gif) New York Times on the Web Forums
 Science
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.
  (15928 previous messages)
rshow55
- 11:14am Oct 30, 2003 EST (#
15929 of 15940)
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.
For some jobs, there is no alternative to discussions face
to face - with contact long enough so that people get their
anger and their fear under control - figure out what each side
really wants - and work out relationships that look good and
stable, on balance, to both sides - and that can actually be
made to work.
If that's not possible - fights are inevitable - and the
parties "might as well go ahead and fight."
A lot has happened since I sent this postcard. But nothing
that has given me any reason to doubt what it says - or doubt
that what it says needs to be learned. http://www.mrshowalter.net/LtToSenateStffrWSulzbergerNoteXd.html
To craft agreements that are stable - there are
technical things to be sorted out - and it seems to me that
we're well on our way to getting the principles clearer.
bluestar23
- 11:17am Oct 30, 2003 EST (#
15930 of 15940)
"craft agreements that are stable - there are technical
things to be sorted out - and it seems to me that we're well
on our way to getting the principles clearer."
More ridiculous statements from Showalter..."sorted
out"..."agreements"...more insane babbling..."well on our way"
to what? he's back to not talking about his "communication"
with the New York Times as if it never happened...just
disgusting claptrap from this idiotic buffoon...
bluestar23
- 11:21am Oct 30, 2003 EST (#
15931 of 15940)
rshow55:
Some weeks ago, I sent the following in an open postcard to
Mr. Arthur O. Sulzberger, Jr. Publisher of The New York Times,
at the suggestion of an associate of mine close to the Times.
*****
"Dear Mr. Sulzberger:
" I need an exception to NYT policy, and feel I have to ask
you, or someone you designate, for the permission. Our nuclear
weapons systems and ongoing and prospective negotiations about
them involve instabilities. I would like to communicate with
Sam Nunn and Ted Turner's NUCLEAR THREAT INITIATIVE in ways
that can work.
" I am asking that (reporter's name), or someone (s)he
designates assist me in Washington over three days time --
meeting with some NTI people to discuss a presentation on
stability - then spending a day helping to prepare a
presentation the NTI people, as they are, can understand and
use. Some explosive instabilities need to be avoided
by the people who must make and maintain the relevant
agreements. The system
crafted needs to be workable for what it has to do, have
feedback, damping, and dither in the right spots with the
right magnitudes. The things that need to be checkable should
be.
" I will try to pay my debts appropriately, and think
perhaps I can. I feel that the TIMES staff spend more than 10%
of its time on defense and offense. It should be more like
3.5%. I feel that the reduction can be done, step by step,
with each step win-win.
bluestar23
- 11:26am Oct 30, 2003 EST (#
15932 of 15940)
"I feel that the TIMES staff spend more than 10% of its
time on defense and offense. It should be more like 3.5%. I
feel that the reduction can be done, step by step, with each
step win-win."
WTF..? "defense and offense"...? What "system crafted"...?
For what...? They will wonder what on earth you mean by
this....why don't YOU communicate with Ted Turners's NTI or
Sam Nunn yourself..? What exactly do you mean...
(8 following messages)
   
New York Times on the Web Forums
Science
Missile Defense
| 
