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.

lchic - 05:20pm Aug 9, 2002 EST (#3591 of 3606)

International take on the cult of lies
'The Poster' is speaking of is
recognised as a ploy
by the Republicans
to stop Clinton Democrat President
from functioning
from focusing on protecting
Americans from Terror attacks.

Inanimate
yet once a star
encircled by the chattering hoard
who laughed gauffed shrieked
and said
"Good Lord!!!"

Alone and cold
with bubble stream
was my past
a 'mare-ish
Nineties dream

<sup>http://www.jach.hawaii.edu/JAClocal/images/clipart/Food/coolwate.gif

dR2002

CoolerGate</sup>

The Republicans weren't interested in what was right for America in this period = rather their interest was in NOT allowing proper government. They created FICTIONS and LIES related to the President - all of which would be stresses and worries ... and ultimately came to a bubble of whitewater nothingness.

The negativeness of the Republican party over those eight years is said to have put the public's eye on 'gossip' and homeland supposed 'scandal' .... when the real ball game was Saudi and the threats to the USA coming from the terrorists funded by that State.

A marketing poll approach asking the people of Iraq and those in Saudi questions to assertain their attitude towards the USA right now finds that the people of Iraq have a more positive attitude towards America - isn't this something positive to run with and build from .... rather than once again bomb the hell out of these civillians?!

PS
KEN STARR said he was going to look into the CONFLICT of interest situation regarding the Republicans and ARMS spending ... Bush's Dad, Cheney etc etc .... then 9/11 ... was Ken Starr's mouth clamped shut?!!

rshow55 - 07:02pm Aug 9, 2002 EST (#3592 of 3606)

Mazza, I appreciated mazza9 8/9/02 2:36pm . And it is certainly true that every kind of lie and corruption in America that you can name has participants from both our major political parties.

Even if I sometimes think that the Clinton administration was "more sinned against than sinning" - - - there surely was plenty of sinning !

All the same, accounting about details matters a lot - - and it seems to me that lchic has a lot straight - - - though I'm a more conservative person than she is.

The human (and American, and bipartisan) problem with lies is plainly a bipartisan problem.

Not a problem that I can imagine eliminating - so long as people are people. But questions of "lied how much - and lied about what?" matter a lot.

You can argue that Clinton and some in his administration took lying, as a matter of political technique, to "a whole new level" If you read Howard Kurtz's Spin Cycle -- you can make that argument. And if you look at Michael Lewis' TRAIL FEVER you'll see plenty of reason to despair of both major parties.

But for cynicism, it seems to me that the Republicans are worse - a lot worse - at a number of key levels. I found this piece disturbing.

In Virginia, Young Conservatives Learn How to Develop and Use Their Political Voices by BLAINE HARDEN http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/11/politics/11CONS.html

I don't think it is sane to dismiss people as human beings if they are caught in "stretchers" - or "lies" -- what politicians would be left?

But a key question, to me, is what decisions are made in the end and if you keep score, how much corruption do you see? How much does it matter?

I don't think it is unfair to say that there is considerable room for improvement in the Bush administration. That seems to me to be putting the matter gently.

rshow55 - 07:06pm Aug 9, 2002 EST (#3593 of 3606)

It seems to me that many of the things that almarst has said, and that many European politicians are saying about the Bush administration are fair.

If they are not fair (everything considered) the way to say they are unfair is not to find examples of mistakes or corruption by Democrats (you'll surely find them) -- but to set up the case for charges of corruption - on both sides -- and do some careful accounting.

On missile defense, for example, it seems to me that H.L. Menken's language applies. The MD programs I've seen discussed - here or anywhere else, are, in terms of what they are supposed to do "as devoid of merit as a herringfish is of fur."

We've gone back and forth on a lot of things, Mazza. We agree on some things, but not some other things. MD3515 rshow55 8/5/02 7:48pm includes this from you:

" We need to evolve beyond the need for warfare. To settle problems or achieve ends of a personal nature we need to solve the global issues which divide rather than unite us a sentitent being on the "Third Rock From the Sun".

We agree about that. That means that, when it matters enough, questions of facts and proportion have to be clear. So that people can make decisions on the basis of what is technically true. A lot of "emotional intelligence" is hopeless unless that level of "technical intelligence" is there.

3515 ends with some questions for you, Mazza:

how are key things to be established and checked? We've talked a good deal about that, and maybe the approaches referenced in MD1075-76 rshow55 4/4/02 1:20pm . . that were unacceptable in the old environment Greenberg speaks of might be more acceptable in the new environment?

When I've criticised MD programs - can you tell me things, of a specific, technical nature, where you think I've gotten it wrong?

Can you, Mazza? Perhaps we can widen are areas of agreement, and clarify what it is about missile defense, as a technical field, that we disagree about.

(13 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense