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 - 02:38pm Nov 13, 2003 EST (# 17556 of 17564)

rshow55 - 01:30pm Nov 13, 2003 EST (# 17539 of 17546)

Whining continues. Rant continues. Expect more as the time nears... Trying to "leave gracefully" ? "Happy" to leave ?

I have to be able to satisfy people who know as much about security laws and usages - and how the world really works - as Bill Casey did.

That’s your own obsession with Casey. No confirmation of anything you say-- YET.

I'm asking for that piece of paper for very good reasons - and if the NYT doesn't understand the reasons - it is missing a great deal that it should know. As a citizen. And for its own business reasons.

You’ve given no legitimate reason, so far as I can tell. Am sorry to see you reducing yourself to whining and groveling – NOT a pretty sight for one looking for “leaving gracefully” or "happy" to leave ! YOU don’t WANT it over ! You’re still pleading; still groveling…

lchic - 01:31pm Nov 13, 2003 EST (# 17540 of 17546)

Shaw was for morally forcing truth - via the paradigm shift of gut swell of public opinion

I love GBS too, but any relevance here ?

rshow55 - 01:31pm Nov 13, 2003 EST (# 17541 of 17546)

What I'm asking for shouldn't restrict the New York Times from anything valid it does - either "on the record" or "off the record."

STOP whining here.

Why can't you tell ALL this directly to NYT ? NO body has anything to do with NYT or your problem with it. And, no body seems interested in representing problems you STILL have not defined.

rshow55 - 01:47pm Nov 13, 2003 EST (# 17542 of 17547)

Here are things that NYT people should know well - well enough to make good decisions about.

That makes it necessary for people to care about (and know) what is being said about them - for straight economic reasons.

ONCE AGAIN, Why can't you tell this directly to NYT mamagement/publisher or whosoever you can gert hold ogf there ?

rshow55 - 01:49pm Nov 13, 2003 EST (# 17543 of 17547)

To be an economic actor I have to care what people think about me. And of course I'm responsible for what I've said and done. If I'm criticised - I need to know it so I can deal with what's involved. If people can talk about someone - and that person doesn't know it - on a routine basis - they can totally immobilize him - and destroy his ability to function. Casey was very clear about that. When he had to kill the Oppenheimer offering for AEA, he knew just how to do it - and so did I. If the Times doesn't know how these things matter - they aren't doing their job nearly as well as they could.

That's YOUR unquestioning devotion to Casey. Most peoiple don't feel that indentured. Not relevant here.

rshow55 - 01:51pm Nov 13, 2003 EST (# 17544 of 17547)

They are doing unnecessary damage - being less influential than they could be - and missing chances to make money honorably - and to police dishonorable conduct from others.

No use ranting here ! Why can't you write to/call NYT ?

rshow55 - 01:53pm Nov 13, 2003 EST (# 17545 of 17547)

I have not asked for a whitewash. I've asked for a situation where the things that the NYT tells others about me - they also tell me.

For instance, if I'm trying to raise money for any deal I'm involved in - a private detective probably should run down leads on this Missile Defense board. He needs interfacing rules. And the rule I need - and he needs - is one that permits consistency. That means people know what people are saying - people are "reading off the same page."

Do whatever you feel necessary. Any body stopping you ?

rshow55 - 01:56pm Nov 13, 2003 EST (# 17546 of 17547)

For putting complex deals together that can be stable this is crucial. People should be much more clear about this. Especially at the New York Times. And certainly a case where they should be sensitive

cantabb - 02:39pm Nov 13, 2003 EST (# 17557 of 17564)

rshow55 - 01:56pm Nov 13, 2003 EST (# 17546 of 17547)

For putting complex deals together that can be stable this is crucial. People should be much more clear about this. Especially at the New York Times. And certainly a case where they should be sensitive is when they are using "coded monikers" where everyone in a defined group knows who is who - and outsiders don't.

Why can’t you tell all this to them, directly !

rshow55 - 01:57pm Nov 13, 2003 EST (# 17547 of 17547)

The New York Times - perhaps more than any other organization in the secular society - is expected to be responsible about what it says and implies.

Tell them that too.

rshow55 - 02:09pm Nov 13, 2003 EST (# 17550 of 17551)

cantabb , if you're affiliated with the New York Times - you're putting both yourself and your organization at risk. This is something I have to fight about - and there will be a whole lot of people on my side - not only in this country, but internationally.

MORE threats from you ?????

rshow55 - 02:10pm Nov 13, 2003 EST (# 17551 of 17551)

This work has some problems with structure - though it has some advantages. It would work just fine as pretrial discovery .

Try that, OK ?

(7 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense