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 (16290 previous messages)

fredmoore - 06:39am Nov 3, 2003 EST (# 16291 of 16345)

What a Cantabury time waster! Buried alive in his deconstructive nonsense.

I win .... you lose ... THIS game cantabb!

Lsic 'em Lchic!

RShow 'em Rshow!

I really can think of worse leaders than Dawn and Robert. I really can. Those who lead the Forum into over 100 posts in one day with their childish taunts for example.

On KAEP:

"A U.S. Environmental Protection Agency biologist has resigned in protest of his agency’s acceptance of a developer-financed study concluding that wetlands discharge more pollutants than they absorb, according to a statement released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). EPA’s approval of the study gives developers credit for improving water quality by replacing natural wetlands with golf courses and other developments.

http://www.peer.org/press/403.html "

This may be a serious problem to US defence as:

a. The world will see that an attack on wetlands is an attack on a KAEP style Global-Equity future and therefore a slap in the face of aspiring second and third world countries. This has the potential to generate external threats to the US

b. The removal of wetlands will allow high ENTROPY and thus disorder to build up on the continental US. This disorder has the potential to corrode the ability of the US to withstand external threats.

cantabb - 06:44am Nov 3, 2003 EST (# 16292 of 16345)

fredmoore - 06:39am Nov 3, 2003 EST (# 16291 of 16291)

More blithering incoherence from your veld-barnyard !

What a Cantabury time waster! Buried alive in his deconstructive nonsense.

Keep on digging ! You need it more than anyone else.

I win .... you lose ... THIS game cantabb!

School yard behavior.

Lsic 'em Lchic!

RShow 'em Rshow!

I really can think of worse leaders than Dawn and Robert. I really can. Those who lead the Forum into over 100 posts in one day with their childish taunts for example.

And, compare this to your schoolyard-barnyard swill ?

On KAEP: "A U.S. Environmental Protection Agency biologist has resigned in protest of his agency’s acceptance of a developer-financed study concluding that wetlands discharge more pollutants than they absorb, according to a statement released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). EPA’s approval of the study gives developers credit for improving water quality by replacing natural wetlands with golf courses and other developments. http://www.peer.org/press/403.html "

This may be a serious problem to US defence as: a. The world will see that an attack on wetlands is an attack on a KAEP style Global-Equity future and therefore a slap in the face of aspiring second and third world countries. This has the potential to generate external threats to the US

b. The removal of wetlands will allow high ENTROPY and thus disorder to build up on the continental US. This disorder has the potential to corrode the ability of the US to withstand external threats.

One trick pony from veld-barnyard .......

cantabb - 06:49am Nov 3, 2003 EST (# 16293 of 16345)

fredmoore - 06:39am Nov 3, 2003 EST (# 16291 of 16292)

I really can think of worse leaders than Dawn and Robert. I really can.

"[L]eaders" ? They are your leaders. NO other.

fredmoore - 06:50am Nov 3, 2003 EST (# 16294 of 16345)

That was quick ...

Your Hipocracy eh?

LOooOSER

cantabb - 06:51am Nov 3, 2003 EST (# 16295 of 16345)

".. Of NO other [person/poster]".

NB: One of YOUR "leaders" needs "permission" to "function."

cantabb - 06:52am Nov 3, 2003 EST (# 16296 of 16345)

fredmoore - 06:50am Nov 3, 2003 EST (# 16294 of 16295)

That was quick ...

Your Hipocracy eh?

LOooOSER

Schoolyard Fredmoore bleating from veld-barnyard....

More Messages Recent Messages (49 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Your Preferences

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