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 - 12:58pm Jul 26, 2002 EST (#3292 of 3339)

Protecting Capitalism From Itself http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/26/opinion/26FRI1.html is one example, of a series, of the NYT exercising responsible judgement and power.

1188 rshow55 4/8/02 5:39pm

1189 rshow55 4/8/02 5:42pm sets out some public advice I heard from a senior official, years ago:

" In this town, some think that it is all right to do anything that isn't specifically prohibited. But it isn't that easy. There is one standard, one test, that has to apply, to be effective in this town. You have to ask, of whatever you're going to do . . . .

" What would this look like, and how would it be judged, if it was written up, in detail, in THE NEW YORK TIMES? ( I noticed that, though we were in DC, the TIMES was the paper chosen.) "

The NYT commands power and respect that's been well earned, over a long time. And is being well earned today.

I sometimes think I've put the NYT in an unreasonably awkward position. But I've done the best I can, under awkward circumstances. Subject to constraints that I've only felt able to disclose slowly, as the logic of the situation has forced the disclosures.

When a person I had reason to believe was a NYT reporter, and who implied as much repeatedly if tangentially, spent a long time "debriefing me," over email, giving me reason to believe that he was in contact with CIA, and without giving his name, I was put, and that reporter was put, in an awkward postion. Based on my constraints, I was as open and forthcoming as I could be. The process took months.

My situation hasn't been easy to sort out -- and it has involved some difficulties and injustices, it seems to me, from a number of points of view. I've tried to act in good faith. Often, even when I've felt reason to doubt it, I'm sure others have, as well. No doubt I've made some misjudgements. Perhaps some others have done so sometimes, as well.

I thought I would be able to sort the situation out cleanly in September 2000, and it didn't turn out that way. Maybe, if Casey were looking down, he'd say that things have gone ideally. Me, I was hoping for better luck.

But maybe some information in the national interest is coming out, in ways where it can actually do some good. I think Casey would have approved of the work I've done -- and praised lchic to the skies. And, knowing the old pirate, laughed at some of my discomforts.

lchic - 03:41pm Jul 26, 2002 EST (#3293 of 3339)

Issues explained - http://www.guardian.co.uk/theissues/archive/0,6729,184781,00.html

Placing 'issues' into 'NYT search' gives topical output.

rshowalt - 07:09pm Jul 26, 2002 EST (#3294 of 3339)

I looked a while ago, and was glad and grateful to see the board directory link connected back to MD3277rshowalt 7/24/02 4:53pm . There are some things I'd like to get settled with Mazza-Cooper-Dirac- - who I believe to be the same person - George Johnson. Things that could be checked, that I believe should be. I stand by what I said in MD3277-3278

MD3276 wrcooper 7/24/02 4:07pm raises what I think is a most unfortunate point- simply dismissing me as insane -- but does raise points I should address.

"I heard that you have finally gotten a hearing, and that your theory was rejected. I heard that you have delivered your paper at at least one conference.

I've gotten a number of hearings, most in the last three years open-minded and generally favorable. A paper I submitted to NATURE as rejected without comment to me. The paper lacked data. I've since gotten data. The theory says that there is a problem with a computational procedure accounting for crosseffects, and such an error (which can be very large) is shown in calculations using a standard engineering program (Spice.)

I've presented my theory at two conferences, and both times was warmly recieved. At the second of those conferences, I set up a demonstration so that people could see the result I was arguing themselves, and a lot of people looked.

At the moment, the major problem I have with my theory, and with my life more generally, is set out in something I wrote as a backgrounder to a meeting I had with an officer of the University of Wisconsin last week. My impression at that meeting was that the officer didn't think I was necessarily being unreasonable.

If I was free of security limitations - or had clear limitations, and that was in writing, or otherwise clearly checkable then I could interact with people in workable ways - for collaborations and business relationships that fit real needs, in real circumstances.

For sorting out my math problem, that's my key difficulty - has been for a long time, and became an especially (I'd even say desperately) important barrier after September, 2000 -- where interactions with the NYT that I thought would go very well backfired very badly, in terms of my own particular situation. The situation has been intolerably awkward for me, and not only for me. It has been difficult for other people as well -- including some people I admire and appreciate very much at the University of Wisconsin - and also some people who have been very kind, including some mathematicians, who were classmates of mine at the Cornell 6-Year Ph.D. program years ago.

Now, Kline and I could be wrong about the math we did together http://www.wisc.edu/rshowalt/klinerec - - and that wouldn't detract from Kline's other achievements, that will be remembered a very long time, nor would it negate everything about me. (The math doesn't, for instance, have anything much to do with the things I say, that I believe can bear scrutiny, in MD2000 rshow55 5/4/02 10:39am .) All the same, I've found the math important -- and would stake a good deal on it.

There's been a little discussion of my math work on this thread - but not too much.

Is the "person I had reason to believe was a NYT reporter" referred to above rshowalt 7/26/02 12:58pm George Johnson ? Based on what I know, that's a reasonable inference -- and if NYT people want a sense of how reasonable, I hve a good deal of material I can show them.

It seems to me that I've been telling a consistent "story" about my background and my difficulties - and I've asked to have it checked. It seems to me that some have taken an interest - though I may have been wrong.

(45 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense