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.

mazza9 - 10:59pm Jul 24, 2002 EST (#3270 of 3339)
"Quae cum ita sunt" Caesar's Gallic Commentaries

RShow55, et al

Since this is a missile defense forum might you be able to tell me what defense will work against the invectives hurled by lchic against the government and people of the United States? Oh, I know the old grammer school chant,"I'm rubber and your glue. Whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you!"

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Bad manners, name calling, and puerile invective is not the foundation upon which an intelligent, diplomatic discussion of something as important as missile defense can be promoted. To accuse the United States of torture regarding the Gitmo detainees is slander. To even bring that up in this forum is so off-topic that it should be ignored or more to the point blocked.

I've read what cooper said and I agree. You are the admitted "mental case". The supposition that this is an organic and not psychological probelm in no way minimizes the fact. I'm not name calling but repeating what you have posted here about psychiatrist sessions and personal issues. Again, you posted it and it doesn't seem to be germaine to the forum discussion. You blab and blather to great ends and the letter that is posted at your site when your submission was rejected by Nature just documents your elaborative style, (nice way for saying BORING!!)

LouMazza-not Johnson,Cooper,Massa,or anyone else.

lchic - 01:16am Jul 25, 2002 EST (#3271 of 3339)

NAZI techniques in play by GeorgeJohnson (above) ... Showalter is real - check the Madison phone book, whereas Johnson's multiple monikers are just that humdrum characterisation.

lchic - 01:21am Jul 25, 2002 EST (#3272 of 3339)

USA Finance no controls over past decade-Z

"" ..... massive breakdown of the internal controls that are supposed to protect customers and promote confidence in the industry ""

-- as related by one of UncleSam's own - Herbert ..

-- who never confuses
your you're/you are

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/25/opinion/25HERB.html

lchic - 01:26am Jul 25, 2002 EST (#3273 of 3339)

Hunky Dory = M D ?

If finance isn't Hunky Dory?

If finance goes unaudied and unchecked in the private sector

Then how much checking happens in the SECRET SECTOR

Is best practice implemented

Not in bio-labs - where biologicalTerror materials can walk out the door - no security.

And in MISSILE DEFENCE - what goes on ?

The most lethal long lasting dangerous of substances used in Nuclear weapons --
What quality checks ?
How much public scrutiney from the general population ?
How transparent?

lchic - 01:28am Jul 25, 2002 EST (#3274 of 3339)

A comment from the Prez on this please
http://www.drparsons.fsnet.co.uk/georg.html
Exactly!

kalter.rauch - 06:15am Jul 25, 2002 EST (#3275 of 3339)
Earth vs <^> <^> <^>

lchic......

I just want to TOUCH YOU...register your IR signature so I can split you...define you from your decoys...make out your profile against the midnight blue......

rshowalt - 06:45am Jul 25, 2002 EST (#3276 of 3339)

Within the last hour, a post by Mazza

(perhaps I'm wrong - and it was Cooper -- I wasn't paying that much attention, since I was going about the business of copying the thread, and the possibility of deletion didn't occur to me.)

I think it was Mazza -- anyway, it had words like

"Lchic says link . . . but you stink! "

The New York Times can check that what I say here, if it wishes.

Only worth remembering now because it was deleted. (Normally, it may be a bad thing to repeat deleted postings -- especially ones such as that -- but there ought to be an exception here, I think - - because an issue of fraud -- a great deal of effort over years - - a great deal of money belonging to people who "Mazza" or "Cooper" should have nothing against -- and serious issues of public safety are all at stake.)

Mazza-Cooper-Johnson - - whether you are individual people, as you say, or monikers of George Johnson, as lchic and I believe - with things having gone so far - why not talk about getting things checked?

You may have valid objections to doing so (besides the obvious one) - but so far I haven't heard them.

Checking is hard to get in our culture - and frauds can go on a long time - as Herbert points out today http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/25/opinion/25HERB.html

But sometimes the costs of NOT CHECKING are prohibitive -- in money, other things - and to our values -- including values of decency. Johnson's privacy is one value among a number. But does it justify what (I believe, subject to checking) he's done?

MD3290 rshowalt 7/24/02 10:28pm

The stakes are pretty high here - and not only for me.

Again, I believe that it makes sense to remember what has been accomplished, something about the stakes involved, and who has done the work:

1999 rshow55 5/4/02 10:35am ... 2000 rshow55 5/4/02 10:39am
2001 rshow55 5/4/02 11:36am

(63 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense