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.

cantabb - 09:38am Nov 11, 2003 EST (# 17238 of 17271)

rshow55 - 05:57am Nov 11, 2003 EST (# 17224 of 17230)

More of the same nonsense, and more links and re-hash of the material rehashed before -- in this series of posts.

Maybe there will be a chance to get some of that message out, anyway. With internet video coordinated with internet text and TV - some communication patterns are possible that didn't exist not long ago. …..

Sure, that’ll at least keep you occupied.

To do much better than we're doing - we have to find ways to get facts straight - when it matters enough - against the inclination of power holders

Who’s “we”. Can’t be anyone other than you and your ‘world asset’.

“ways to get facts straight” ? What “ways” besides digging them out the old-fashioned way ? May be a “fact-dispenser” ?

“when it matters enough” ? IT ALWAYS matters.

“Power holders want to limit the ability of others to determine facts because that extends their power. It is in the overwhelming collective interest to see that facts that matter enough are determined - both so that power can be reasonably limited - and because human beings have to make decisions on what they believe to be true. “

But you have done NOTHING to get the “facts” – the old fashioned way or through your neighborhood “dispenser.” Mere talking about it ain’t gonna get you anything !

“ If leaders of nation states had the wisdom, fortitude and courage to face the fact that…... Enforced sometimes. When it matters enough. …..how well their cooperation works in human terms. “

Meaningless jabber.

The US needs to do some thinking. The rest of the world should do a lot of thinking, too.

So you suggest the WHOLE world “needs to do some thinking.” Wow. It’ll make a wonderful tag-line, Jorian !

rshow55 - 05:58am Nov 11, 2003 EST (# 17225 of 17230)

There are some "iron walls" that have to become more permeable to exchange of information - -. ,..So that problems can get permanently solved.

Another meaningless rehash.

But I believe that all such solutions require patterns of planning that the United States used to identify with - but has rejected. That's a big reason I want permission (and yes, in practice, I need permission) to talk seriously to operations like Deutsche Bank Securities - that are in contact with more open-minded nation states than the US under GWB.

What “patterns of planning” has US “rejected” ?

You think, mostly because of these unknown but “rejected” values, YOU “want permission” [from whom ???] to talk to Deutsche Bank Securities and their like because they “are in contact with more open-minded nation states” that NO one else has ?

I stopped looking for "logic" in your posts long time ago, BUT why can’t you talk to ‘open-minded’ nation states BY yourself ? Via NYT, you’re talking, e.g., to Australia, the wisest of nations, aren’t you ?

rshow55 - 06:02am Nov 11, 2003 EST (# 17226 of 17230)

If this thread is deleted without being archived - the links above, and many others, will take work to reconstitute on http://www.mrshowalter.net/ or elsewhere.

“Many others” ? Besides you and lchic ?

In the near term, I expect a train wreck instead.

May be for YOU and lchic, mostly ! None other.

But right now, I just happen to be smiling. I know that won't last.

Nothing lasts. Not even Forums !

I'm wondering whether, and if so how, I might be able to coerce or cajole the New York Times into actually letting the work on this thread be effective.

Haven’t you tried it ? With ALL your conditions ?

rshow55 - 06:20am Nov 11, 2003 EST (# 17227 of 17230)

Casey told me ( with a threatening, merry glint in his eye ) that it was "easier to get forgiveness than it is to get permission.

And, Casey told you a LOT of things you have been relating here as gospel. But we have NO

cantabb - 09:38am Nov 11, 2003 EST (# 17239 of 17271)

rshow55 - 06:20am Nov 11, 2003 EST (# 17227 of 17230)

Casey told me ( with a threatening, merry glint in his eye ) that it was "easier to get forgiveness than it is to get permission.

And, Casey told you a LOT of things you have been relating here as gospel. But we have NO evidence of this highly classified info., right ?

Those times are nervous times. Logically challenging times, as well.

They still are “logically challenging” times for you ! You have no ‘logic’ that can be defended -- yet.

And, you included 20+ self-references/links: Rehash of another rehash continues…..

I used to think a lot about issues of self protection - and national protection - and I think the [New York] TIMES is safer now that a buch of disks of this thread have been widely handed out.

Sulzberger & NYT : You’re now “safer” ! Saved by rshow and his Corpus CDs. You can stop shivering now !

And, if the work was discussed on TV, might be safer still.

You mean “Meet the Press” etc ? How about Jerry Springer ? That’s TV too.

rshow55 - 06:44am Nov 11, 2003 EST (# 17228 of 17230)

In a world where facts are essentially never checked when somebody with real power actually objects - some problems are insoluble and some risks are unavoidable.

You NEVER “check” facts yourself, either.

….. That's a reason why, though I very much want this thread to be archived - I also want it to end. So I can actually act - and not be tied up fencing and talking here.

Still pleading ? NO one, except you yourself seems to stop you from functioning. And, if you’re that worried about “fencing,” stay out of the ring. That'd include everywhere you want to discuss things.

(32 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense