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.

rshowalt - 08:32pm Jul 20, 2002 EST (#3184 of 3339)

This thread has been going on a long time. Gisterme , who is either Condoleezza Rice , or one of her team, or (word frequency analysis could verify this) an excellent imitation has contributed more than a thousand thoughtful postings.

Has anybody found a fact or an argument that I've let stand on this thread that was wrong?

Wrong subject to crossexamination?

A single one?

If one, how many, after many points made?

The "missile defense" program is a fraud. And much of our defense posture is, as well.

People standing for election should be forced to discuss this - subject to cross-examination.

Some things ought to be checked. When the stakes are high enough, that checking should be morally forcing.

I have some securities problems to resolve - but there's been some progress.

lchic - 08:47pm Jul 20, 2002 EST (#3185 of 3339)

Afghan scenario

"Did you have a good day today 'honey'?"

- "Quite busy"

"Busy?"

_ "Yes the Yanks came over the top, bombing all the day .... spent the late afternoon sweeping-up the neighbours arms, legs, and throwing children's corpses on the heap"

"And those Yanks go on so about September 11th !!"

- "They don't know what having it tough is!"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/21/international/asia/21CIVI.html

lchic - 08:49pm Jul 20, 2002 EST (#3186 of 3339)

Restricting the media from war zones - is this new?

rshowalt - 09:56pm Jul 20, 2002 EST (#3187 of 3339)

Quick response to . . . rshowalt 7/20/02 8:32pm . . . and the point involved wouldn't be hard to check.

When I first walked into the NYT Washington office -- asking for a chance to talk -- they sent me away -- and when I came back, there was an Assistant Secretary of State (now married to a prominant CNN reporter.) There were witnesses. That could be checked.

Could I be wrong about gisterme ? Sure. All anybody can do is, "connect the dots" -- based on evidence available. Based on evidence available, the conclusion that gisterme is Condoleezza Rice is an extremely reasonable one. For reasons that can be checked.

Nor can the NYT escape knowledge of who you are -- "just a guys from Chicago" indeed!

A lot of stuff is available on this thread, and checkable.

I asked a specific question in rshowalt 7/20/02 8:32pm . . . any response more specific than " get help"?

rshowalt - 10:11pm Jul 20, 2002 EST (#3188 of 3339)

MD2096 rshow55 7/8/02 6:56am

I've put some thoughts about that in a Guardian Talk Thread, DETAIL AND THE GOLDEN RULE http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.eece621/0 which was last put up on September 10, 2001, and removed a few weeks thereafter. I believe that it makes sense to cite it again.

The key point of the thread is this:

" . . . you have to think , and think hard, to figure out how to make the Golden Rule apply to complicated circumstances, and real people. . . . “ And you have to check to see that you haven't missed something, if things matter enough to be careful about."

The Missile Defense links cited in that thread have been removed, but I've made them available as follows.

Links cited in DETAIL AND THE GOLDEN RULE http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?53@@.eece621/0 are set out in Mankind's Inhumanity to Man #290 on

MD4157 to 4532 some cites from May 22, 2001- Jun 6, 2001
http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7b085/330 .

MD6057-6403 some cites from Jun 26, 2001 to Jul 2, 2001
http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7b085/332

MD7384-7394 some cites from Jul 24, 2001
http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7b085/336

MD8698-8832 Some cites from Sept 9, 2001 to Sept 12, 2001
http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7b085/339

Some Cites from How the Brain Works 2178 -2256 Jan 8, 2001 to Feb 25, 2001
http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7b085/349

There are things that need to be checked, that can be checked.

For instance, given the amount of text involved, it would be easy to show that gisterme is probably Condoleezza Rice .

That fact, which I think might be easily established, might be newsworthy.

I've put a lot on this thread that can be checked.

There's been an amazing reluctance to do so. And "indifference" is an imperfect explaination -- because if I've worked hard on this thread, some NYT monitors, gisterme , and others have, too.

rshowalt - 10:19pm Jul 20, 2002 EST (#3189 of 3339)

Detail and the Golden Rule http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@244.zVafax4sarZ.8@.eece621/0 .... starts with discussion of some issues of national security law, and discussions between me and the CIA.

Issues that aren't closed yet, but that are getting nearer to closure.

And yes, based on evidence and conversation, I think the U. S. government cares what I say.

(150 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense