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.

rshow55 - 01:32pm Jul 29, 2002 EST (#3338 of 3353)

RShowalter=RShow55=RShowalt . . . . I don't think there's been any doubt of that.

I notice that mazza9 7/29/02 11:59am , makes a "joke" -- but makes no effort to deny or in any way dispute what I call " a very high likelyhood - not far short of a certainty - that wrcooper, kalter.rauch, mazza, and dirac are pseudonyms for George Johnson." rshow55 7/29/02 9:34am

Some things ought to be checked. Because a good deal is involved.

Involved for me and the AEA investors of course -- and for Johnson, the "family man" wrcooper defended so actively.

But the national interest - and some significant interests of the New York Times are also involved.

Sorting out the truth, on a relatively few checkable points, would be worth a lot.

I've been playing it as straight and as honorably as I've known how. On issues where the stakes have been high.

For example. It appears very likely indeed (and this can be checked) that Condoleeza Rice has participated very actively on this thread -- which would mean that George Bush, and others high in the administration know about it, and care about it. Given some of the things gisterme has said and done (some, but not all, to his-her credit) that's an interesting question. Interesting in terms of national and international politics.

There are some other issues, too. Things worth checking.

The things that Eisenhower warned about in his FAREWELL ADDRESS of January 17, 1961 http://www.geocities.com/~newgeneration/ikefw.htm have happened. Getting some facts straight aobut what's happened on this thread, and checkable things I've said could take us a long way towards getting some important things fixed.

MD3295-96 rshowalt 7/26/02 7:15pm

I'm thinking about some questions.

What would "the average reader of The New York Times " want me to do now?

What would Bill Casey want me to do?

It seems to me that the answers involve getting some facts straight, about what has happened. I was asked to do a dangerous, hard job - a long time ago - under conditions where, again and again, I'd have to struggle with credentialling problems. I'm working to keep my promises - and take reasonable care of myself, as well.

lchic - 03:37pm Jul 29, 2002 EST (#3339 of 3353)

lchic "Science in the News" 7/29/02 3:34pm

rshow55 - 05:57pm Jul 29, 2002 EST (#3340 of 3353)

My interaction with George Johnson has been ugly for a long time. Intermittently ugly, and yet sometimes appreciated, for a longer time.

It is hard for me, now, not to think of Johnson in criminal terms - not to think of his work on the characters of Mazza and Dirac as gross bad faith - conduct irresponsible in every way.

All the same, I remember much help, and some graceful, perceptive work, as well.

I'm assuming that Mazza, Dirac, and wrcooper are Johnson -- but don't think that's much of a stretch, and suspect that many on NYT staff have known that these posters were Johnson for a long time. Assuming that, and also assuming (and this seems almost sure) that the Roland Cooke who "debriefed" me at such length "for the CIA" was Johnson, it is hard for me to think of George as a human being -- even though I know he's written some fine articles that I've enjoyed and learned from. I have to try, if I'm to understand what's happened.

I'm sure that he doesn't regard himself as a criminal, or a person acting in bad faith - though he looks that way to me. And I'm sure that many of his colleagues at the Times don't regard him that way.

In some respects many of them may feel as negatively as he does about me.

I'd like to have a chance to hear his side of the story.

At the same time, I'd like him to hear mine.

There are some things I'd like to apologize to him about - and thank him for. About some things. I feel differently about some other things. But for that, of course, he'd have to treat me as a human being. That may be, in his view, against some key rules.

I'm very proud of some of the things that have happened on this thread - - and I believe that some other people value it, too. I've posted MD2000 rshow55 5/4/02 10:39am a number of times, and the points in it haven't been disputed.

I think that it is interesting that, even at the level of The New York Times , some basic things turn out to be so awkward.

With some other things so beautiful.

almarst2002 - 10:09pm Jul 29, 2002 EST (#3341 of 3353)

US accused of airstrike cover-up - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-368297,00.html

lchic - 10:27pm Jul 29, 2002 EST (#3342 of 3353)

"" It called for “an in-depth investigation (to) be carried out to ensure that such tragedies are not repeated; ^{(from above)}

Reports,investigations, hearings, enquiries, Royal Commissions ... are all a means whereby 'truth' can surface.

The importance of truth is to check for malfunction in method and process, to write up a fair account, and make recommendations for improved methods of practice. One purpose is to 'get the story' regarding the problem, reasons, and potential solutions OUT, so that people can move on.

That civillians on the ground were killed unnecessarily says everything wasn't 'first rate' ... making it 'second rate' .... 'third rate' ... 'fourth rate'!

(11 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense