New York Times on the Web Forums Science
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
(2531 previous messages)
- 07:02pm Jun 14, 2002 EST (#2532
WHO IS this guy? Napoleon? - http://www.msnbc.com/news/746662.asp?0si=-
Let’s get this straight: The military forces of this country are
no longer commissioned to fight for America’s defense. Rather, they
must stand ready to head for any continent that’s home to “tyrants,”
every country where “human liberty” is being denied, and any nation
that is not “free and open.” If we don’t like a leader or the way a
country’s being run, we’re ready to send in our forces. Look out
Saddam Hussein. Look out Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Libya, Syria
and any other country deemed “evil.” Either you carry out a “regime
change” or we’re coming to get you!
- 09:27pm Jun 14, 2002 EST (#2533
"A fool and his money are soon parted." P.T. Barnum
Missile shield test a success, says Pentagon
Interceptor Rocket Test Ends
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
can knock down a medium- or long-range missile
under controlled conditions.
...wasn't meant to be realistic but would help
gather data to guide further development of ship-based
``Either way, whether it hits or misses, it's not
demonstrating or trying to demonstrate a capability to shoot down
intercontinental ballistic missiles at long ranges,'' said Coyle,
who headed the Pentagon's testing office under President Clinton.
One thing both articles failed to mention; was just how much this
test cost the American taxpayers for Thursday's demonstration. And,
since we are only gathering data, this question should be no great
feat for the Bush Administration to derive an answer for the public.
As to the "controlled conditions", well let's just say that,
we still cannot hit a target if decoy material is spread out
before the target , that we aim to hit and destroy. And always
remember: the smarter or better we get with our radar systems to
offset this imbalance, the other side will always think of ways to
make their decoys more effective too. Much like a hacker and
software, the two are one. That's only if our FBI & CIA agents
don't steal the information and sell it to the other side. Bear in
mind we have yet to figure out if all of our nasty moles are caught
and or incarcerated.
And I wonder, just what was meant by the Pentagon officials
comment when they (and we still don't know who the they are)
said that the test wasn't meant to be realistic. Are we wasting our
money here folks? Or what? How much will fact finding cost us
overall? Damn it, I want a breakdown of costs, to see just how
unrealistic this project will be, and who (and I mean all of them)
is prospering from this program, and what other countries are
involved. I want to know that our secrets are safe, since we have
gotten many a black-eye from past performances by our people in the
information control departments.
And why did the NYTimes question Coyle, who headed the Pentagon's
testing office under President Clinton. He's not in office now, and
shouldn't be allowed to express his opinion, which was totally a
waste anyway. He said - basically nothing at all. So what the hell
is the test for Coyle, or do you always dangle a carrot that is not
really a carrot at all, in front of the American citizens. Your
sentence said nothing. And why did the Times waste their good ink on
such a non-informational quote?
All I can say is BUSH LOVES TO SPEND OUR MONEY ON HIS FRIENDS.
That is all.
- 10:13pm Jun 14, 2002 EST (#2534
"All I can say is BUSH LOVES TO SPEND OUR MONEY ON HIS
As they love to spend money on him.
Now that's all.
- 12:03am Jun 15, 2002 EST (#2535
You do have a point there, sorry I left it off.
Later thanks, and have an ENRON kind of day,
modified at 12:02 AM
- 03:05am Jun 15, 2002 EST (#2536
So jawG is reduced to mainly conversing with monikers - must be
that sort of a week over in the US(A).
The Guardian ran this header
Cracks show in Bush's White House
The president's men are at
odds with themselves
" .. . Mr Rumsfeld was speaking
from the hip at the flashpoint of a potential nuclear confrontation.
... " http://www.guardian.co.uk/bush/story/0,7369,738011,00.html
" Mr Bush appears unable or unwilling to settle the row. He is
constrained from leaning too heavily on the Israeli prime minister,
Ariel Sharon, by his fear of alienating pro-Israeli conservatives
who represent the core of his re-election strategy. "
(If these guys represent only 6% of the USA and are
right-of-rightWingers .. then the only other factor they might be
good for i$$$$$$!)
- 04:41am Jun 15, 2002 EST (#2537
Why would 6% of the USA population represent Bush's core election
strategy ... isn't Bush supposed to represent 100% of the people, so
where do the othe 9-4% fit?!
New York Times on the Web Forums Science