New York Times Readers Opinions
The New York Times
Home
Job Market
Real Estate
Automobiles
News
International
National
Politics
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
New York Today
Crossword/Games
Cartoons
Magazine
Week in Review
Multimedia
College
Learning Network
Services
Archive
Classifieds
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 (3218 previous messages)

rshowalt - 12:34pm Jul 22, 2002 EST (#3219 of 3339)

Sometimes the coverage in the NYT is so distinguished that it revives my sometimes-wavering confidence in Bill Casey's judgement and advice on a key issue. I think the following coverage is really distinguished.

NEWS ANALYSIS Investor Confidence Ebbs as Market Keeps Dropping By GRETCHEN MORGENSON http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/21/business/21CONF.html

As the Dow Jones careened to a loss of almost 400 points by Friday, it became clear that many investors may have finally stopped believing in the stock market.

Related Articles:

News Analysis: No Strong Voice on Bush's Team http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/21/politics/21ECON.html

Week in Review: Hold On for a Wild Ride http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/21/weekinreview/21BERE.html

I was especially impressed with this:

INTERACTIVE GRAPHIC The Incredible Shrinking Stock Market More Than $7 Trillion Gone By SETH W. FEASTER http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/21/weekinreview/20020721_MARKET_GRAPHIC.html

What follows are various ways of looking at the market's continuing contraction.

Here's a beautiful technique -- graphs under graphs:

Click on the graph above to learn more.

And what wonderful graphs!

Market Value: 17.25 Trillion - March 24, 2000
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/weekinreview/20020721_MARKET/nwr_MARKET_01.html

Market Value: 10.03 Trillion - July 18, 2002
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/images/weekinreview/20020721_MARKET/nwr_MARKET_02.gif

Market Structure:
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/images/weekinreview/20020721_MARKET/nwr_MARKET_03.gif

FRANK RICH is right in The Road to Perdition http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/20/opinion/20FRIC.html . . . "Everything is connected."

When Casey advised me that, after easier options were exhausted, my best chance was to "come in through The New York Times - - he had good reasons. When exposition is difficult, and depth is needed - it is the best newspaper in the world. Though not, perhaps, as good as Casey thought in every respect.

rshowalt - 02:37pm Jul 22, 2002 EST (#3220 of 3339)

I've been busy, and I haven't gotten a detailed respose together for MD3229 kalter.rauch 7/22/02 4:53am ... and MD3231 mazza9 7/22/02 11:36am The key questions about MD programs are simple, after all. To shoot down an incoming missile there are three key questions:

Can you see the target?

Can you hit the target?

Can you hurt the target?

With reflective coatings (even such a simple one as mylarized gold) you can immunize a missile or warhead from damage -- even if the laser weapos system could "see" it -- and "hit" it -- jobs that, under realistic conditions, are, putting it gently "very hard" to do.

More on this later, but the issues involved have been discussed here before, and the following postings fit.

MD869_870 rshow55 3/27/02 11:23am

MD871 almarst-2001 3/27/02 3:43pm

We need military programs that work. That's one of the reasons why, from the beginning, I've emphasized interdiction - - if it has to be done. Done sensibly.

lchic - 11:52pm Jul 22, 2002 EST (#3221 of 3339)

Security UK - what security ?

""The military told the committee it was extremely difficult to coordinate planning, much of which was still was modelled on cold war threats. (REPORT)

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/attacks/story/0,1320,761621,00.html

mazza9 - 11:57pm Jul 22, 2002 EST (#3222 of 3339)
"Quae cum ita sunt" Caesar's Gallic Commentaries

RShowalt:

With reflective coatings (even such a simple one as mylarized gold) you can immunize a missileor warhead from damage -- even if the laser weapos system could "see" it -- and "hit" it -- jobs that, under realistic conditions, are, putting it gently "very hard" to do.

Facts, Robert not opinion. Where are your facts?

BTW the first ABL 747 departed Wichita for Edwards AFB where the laser will be mounted. Testing will be conducted and IOC is set for sometime in '04. Given the recent news regarding the prolifieration of crusie weapons the IOC may be moved up. BTW Kaytushka rockets have been knocked down with laser weapons. Your fantasy regarding mylarized coatings is just that, a fantasy.

lchic - 12:07am Jul 23, 2002 EST (#3223 of 3339)

Big Business cut tax corners UK

"" ... Norman Baker, Liberal Democrat MP for Lewes, who has pursued the Guardian's earlier disclosures about tax avoidance by Hans Rausing, Britain's richest man, last night called for the public accounts committee to investigate the conduct of the Inland Revenue.

"Why should ordinary wage earners, often on low income, pay their tax on time and in full when the grandest corporations and the richest individuals are apparently being allowed to get away tax free?" he said. "We're taking from the poor and giving to the rich."

The agreements are part of what insiders call "a new strategy of appeasement" towards multinationals. ...

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/economics/story/0,11268,761706,00.html
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/economics/story/0,11268,761563,00.html
Hartnett Review

More Messages Recent Messages (116 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Email to Sysop  Your Preferences

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





Home | Back to Readers' Opinions Back to Top


Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company | Privacy Policy | Contact Us