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 (17643 previous messages)

fredmoore - 11:40pm Nov 13, 2003 EST (# 17644 of 17658)

Meanwhile down in the barnyard Robert's copping a fierce pecking from that shagnasty rooster (doesn't even know he's a chook ...dumb as a box of rocks) Canthorn Tabbhorn:

I doubt he'll include all the posts TILL Nov 14. Bwark-bwuk bwuk bwk That will be self-imploding ! Bwark-bwuk bwuk bwk

But he has NOT said yet Bwark-bwuk bwuk bwk IF his "corpus" CD is a Bwark-bwuk bwuk bwk TRUE copy Bwark-bwuk bwuk bwk of everything on this thread till Nov 14. Bwark-bwuk bwuk bwk

No peck-and-choose selectivity. Bwark-bwuk bwuk bwk rshow and lchic don't seem ready Bwark-bwuk bwuk bwk or so "happy" to leave -- YET Bwark-bwuk bwuk bwk ! Still ranting, still demanding ! Bwark-bwarkk bwaark bwaaaaark I expect their posting frenzy will continue till the end. Bwark-bwuk bwuk bwk

Am glad, in a way, kate-nyt gave NO time for the axe. Bwark-bwuk bwuk bwk To put them out of their misery,Bwark-bwuk bwuk bwk the sooner the better Bwark-bwuk bwuk bwk -- how about a minute past midnight tonight Bwark-bwuk bwuk bwk ? That'll be Nov 14, won't it ? Bwark-bwarkk bwaark bwaaaark. Now where's that nice little Lchicky wicky?

Canthorn, whatever Bwark-bwarkk bwaark bwk you have to say, just let me say 'right back at ya' and double it. I don't have your luxury of 'time to waste'.

It's Your Bwark-bwarkk bwaark bwk .... no value to MD and no interest to me.

cantabb - 11:49pm Nov 13, 2003 EST (# 17645 of 17658)

Rejected a few times before as your paranoid nonsense, .....

rshow55 - 09:59pm Nov 13, 2003 EST (# 17626 of 17642)

My involvement with the Missile Defense board started with discussion about nuclear weapons on the old NYT Favorite Poetry board. …..

rshow55 - 10:06pm Nov 13, 2003 EST (# 17628 of 17642)

Almarst's postings have often been distinguished. He's had many very perceptive things to say about Iraq - and about international relations in general. …..

rshow55 - 10:25pm Nov 13, 2003 EST (# 17632 of 17642)

There's nothing I can write, just now, any better than the extensive collection of good stuff ………..After the MD thread ends, I'll have some time to summarize. And condense, in a way that isn't possible in the heat of what has too often been a battle. I'm looking forward to that.

Endless repetition. Made no sense before. Ain't gonna do better the nth time..

rshow55 - 11:56pm Nov 13, 2003 EST (# 17646 of 17658)
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.

Cantabb , for the life of me, it did seem to me that the stuff made sense . . .

This too:

It is a long time since Watergate:

Assessing Watergate 30 Years Later By RICHARD REEVES

"President Richard Nixon would have loved the coverage of the 30th anniversary of the Watergate break-in last week. The scandal that drove him from office has been pretty much reduced to a little guessing game about who did or didn't whisper in the ear of a young Washing- ton Post reporter that there were some bad things going on in the White House. Who was Deep Throat? Who cares? The press cares, that's who. http://www.mrshowalter.net/Assessing%20Watergate%2030%20Years%20Later.htm

In the intervening time - things have gotten more complicated - and uncorrected problems of irresponsible power have gotten more serious.

With new tools for "connecting the dots" - a lot more can be sorted out than was possible before.

Irresponsible power - including irresponsible power of the press - is vulnerable in new ways. : . . . .

. . .

The things Eisenhower warned of in his Farewell Address have happened. http://www.geocities.com/~newgeneration/ikefw.htm We're in a mess - and it would be good to sort some things out - - gracefully

Stability concerns that worried the hell out of him are still concerns.

People with power are going to have to ask that some key things be checked.

From where we are, it shouldn't be hard.

As fredmoore says, "God bless free speech, God bless this Forum and God bless America."

with luck - this will be its last post.

bluestar23 - 11:59pm Nov 13, 2003 EST (# 17647 of 17658)

10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1,.....

bluestar23 - 12:01am Nov 14, 2003 EST (# 17648 of 17658)

here until they get to work.....

More Messages Recent Messages (10 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Your Preferences

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