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 - 03:44pm Jul 21, 2002 EST (#3207 of 3339)

mazza9 7/21/02 1:41pm . . . . . . . I've been involved with people with pseudonyms, faked phone connections, and "identifications" through web sites a good deal by now. Enough to know that sometimes, checks have to be reasonably direct.
rshowalt 7/21/02 11:03am

There is a possibilty that I'm just carring on a literary exercise, I suppose, and I've said as much (search "Ismael", this thread) http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/289 reposts from this thread:

. rshowalter - 07:22am Jun 26, 2001 EST (#6057 of 7079) Robert Showalter mrshowalter@thedawn.com

"I say here that I knew Bill Casey a little.

"And of course, everything's deniable - I'm not sure anybody has any records at all. Maybe I'm a literary figure -- call me Ishmael.

"The story I like best about me, in this regard, is that I'm just a guy who got interested in logic, and military issues. A guy who got concerned about nuclear danger, and related military balances, and tried to do something about it. Based on what he knew - with no access to special information of any kind, he made an effort to keep the world from blowing up, using the best literary devices he could fashion, consistent with what he knew or could guess.

" Let me go on with another story. . . . .

But the "other story" has been set out, and has a lot of details that can be checked. And should be.

And the questions of Condoleeza Rice's participation in this thread, and your identity, can be checked, too.

Since gisterme's pointed question of MD2719 gisterme 6/24/02 9:34pm I've been more specific (felt able to be more specific) about some things in my past.

MD2770-1 rshow55 6/29/02 7:59am

MD2792 rshow55 6/30/02 5:31pm

MD2726 rshow55 6/25/02 8:59am

But some key things remain unresolved. MD3044 rshow55 7/13/02 8:57pm . . I need a resolution in writing. I could live with the one I have now verbally - if it was explicit, so that I could use it. Though a more reasonable arrangement would be better in a number of ways.

As for missile defense - the things I've said about missile defense are all checkable, and depend very little on the issue of whether I'm "Ishmael" or not. So far as I can tell, nothing I've said about missile defense, cited in MD84 rshow55 3/2/02 11:52am or elsewhere, has been wrong. The program is as devoid of merit as Postol of MIT says it is.

Unless I'm wrong, Johson-Mazza-Cooper-Rauch (and some others) are one person. Mazza et al deny that. The point can be checked, and should be. Sometimes checks, to be valid, have to be reasonably direct. rshowalt 7/21/02 11:03am

lchic - 05:01pm Jul 21, 2002 EST (#3208 of 3339)

The FUNDAMENTALS are there ... USA StockExchange ... but investors are running for cover .... CONFIDENCE isn't there!

lchic - 05:31pm Jul 21, 2002 EST (#3209 of 3339)

BUSH KNEW KNEW KNEW KNEW
the state of Harken
when he sold his shares

C O N F I D E N C E

is

F A L L I N G

lchic - 05:45pm Jul 21, 2002 EST (#3210 of 3339)

F

A

L

L

I

N

G

rshowalt - 05:49pm Jul 21, 2002 EST (#3211 of 3339)

Confidence that is well founded is based on good reasons -- and that requires that checking be done from time to time -- so that trust is justified.

Trust is important - never moreso than in instrument flying of airplanes, where it is vital, in the most basic sense, for pilots to trust their instruments . But for that trust to be justified , there has to be, from time to time -- calibration and checking of instruments. That is to say, for trust to be justified under usual circumstances -- patterns that systematically distrust results - check them, and correct them -- have to occur.

In matters of military function, including Missile Defense, enronation and hidden finagling happen much too often - have for a very long time -- and checking is denied.

That's a major issue -- and an important reason why the "story" I've been telling on this thread should be checked. Because we cannot afford massive fraud and massive mistakes in military matters. And we cannot afford the continuation of patterns of corruption that Eisenhower predicted so clearly in his Farewell Address http://www.geocities.com/~newgeneration/ikefw.htm - - patterns that have gone on a long time - and corrupted, endangered, and wasted a great deal.

Consequences are too great to ignore -- and checking my "story" in detail would provide much structure for checking many key things that ought to concern many Americans, and that do concern people all over the world.

WEEK IN REVIEW America the Invulnerable? The World Looks Again By STEVEN ERLANGER http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/21/weekinreview/21ERLA.html

"European leaders, increasingly irritated by the Bush administration, feel they are coming to a moment of truth about their relationship with Washington.

The Global Cost of Crony Capitalism by DAVID E. SANGER http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/21/weekinreview/21SANG.html

"THROUGHOUT much of the 1990's, Washington had a standard — and somewhat preachy — message to the rest of the world: In an era when markets rule and military might is of limited use, a nation's influence rises and fall largely on its financial credibility.

(128 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense