New York Times Forums
The New York Times

Job Market
Real Estate
New York Region
NYT Front Page
Readers' Opinions

Dining & Wine
Home & Garden
Fashion & Style
Week in Review
Learning Network
Book a Trip
Theater Tickets
Premium Products
NYT Store
NYT Mobile
E-Cards & More
About NYTDigital
Jobs at NYTDigital
Online Media Kit
Our Advertisers
Your Profile
E-Mail Preferences
News Tracker
Premium Account
Site Help
Privacy Policy
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 (16325 previous messages)

bluestar23 - 08:47am Nov 3, 2003 EST (# 16326 of 16345)

More MD links...

bluestar23 - 08:49am Nov 3, 2003 EST (# 16327 of 16345)

From the above, try this interactive link for "fun" MD information..

"For more than 50 years, deterrence has been the policy of the nuclear powers. Is it time for a new policy? Can defenses stop nuclear attacks?"

"The simulation on these pages is designed to help answer these questions. Simulate an attack, using scenarios of your choice. Decide for yourself whether the best policy is deterrence or defense."

cantabb - 08:54am Nov 3, 2003 EST (# 16328 of 16345)

rshow55 - 08:13am Nov 3, 2003 EST (# 16320 of 16321)

On October 26, I wrote a fairly short email to the "top dog" at the New York Times - and some interesting things have happened since. That e-mail referred to this posting of October 26, which was written with the correspondence to the top man in mind: That piece quotes Cantabb , who said

"And, had you written THAT "short" "well-crafted" letter to him and called him, as you had been planning to do, you would have returned from NYC by now, after a visit to CIA, FBI, Rummy, GW, Rice and the whole gang-- and their stand-ins."

It hasn't been that easy - as I knew it wouldn't be, couldn't be, and shouldn't have been.

What seems easy for you is LONG ramblings and endless re-hash. Not a brief email.

Some interesting things have happened since, and I've been pleased with some of them. There's been some effort to answer questions I posed, that necessarily imply some reciprocal questions. In fact, there's been a sophisticated response to those questions that is constructive as for as it goes, and appreciated.

Mumbo-jumbo !

Here are the questions:

Suppose Robert Showalter is telling the truth, within the normal limits, about his situation. What would he need to be able to leave this board and function? and a related question:

Suppose Robert Showalter is telling the truth, within the normal limits, about his situation. Under what circumstances is he crippled in the ways that matter for function?

Haven't you been asking these questions for long ?

All I and 'average NYT Forum readers' can say is that you have been telling/claiming somethings.

True or NOT -- only the evidence will show, IF it is ever presented ! This you STILL have not !

I have a "solution" that "might" work perfectly well for me - but it is unstable - not really usable as it stands - and the issues involved cannot be resolved well, from any point of view I can think of that a New York Times reader or organizational stakeholder would reasonably take - without some more communication.

Once again, YOUR problems are yours alone--- NOT of the "average reader" of NYT. IN fact, NYT readers have a "problem" with your spilling your "problems" here -- NO concern of anyone else except you & World Asset !

The sophisticated response I got to my request was from a ranking person at The New York Times - and I'll be working to communicate with him again today. He hasn't returned a phone call - and there has been comment about it on this board.

Keep at it if you MUST, and spare the forum.

Lchic and I are making progress on some of our own problems - and on some problems that desperately concerned Eisenhower - problems of negotiating stable peace agreements.

"[O]ur own problems" ? Note lchic, next time you quibble !

"[P]roblems of negotiating stable peace agreements" have "desperately concerned" EVERY SINGLE President since Ike.

The question is: How were YOU (43 to 50 years ago or later) assigned THIS crucial US problem (and NOT scores of far-far-more qualified and knowledgeable people available to him) ? And why ? What the heck have you done about it since ? [Don't bother with "house arrest" and "permission" and other pat excuses].

It isn't a lot harder than teaching kids how to tie their shoes - but it takes a while.

It's the question of "LEARNING" -- NOT teaching the kids to tie their shoes. They have tied their shoes, gone to school & playground (some are still there), got education, found jobs, made careers and may even be thinking of retirement NOW !

Things are being demonstrated here that every professional diplomat should

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