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 - 11:00am Aug 31, 2002 EST (# 4071 of 4079)

Showalter .... the world watches Hollywood movies day-in day-out .... there's usually a hero who saves the day ... comes out ON TOP ... waving the USA flag - so to speak

Are you saying the supply of American Heros has completly dried-up

If so can the US justify making movies in Hollywood in 'this day and age' !

lchic - 11:03am Aug 31, 2002 EST (# 4072 of 4079)

On MEast the Palestinians have an enforced unemployment rate of ... was it 65% ... meaning that many people have neither means nor money - a sort of GENOCIDE!

lchic - 11:14am Aug 31, 2002 EST (# 4073 of 4079)

|> BBC Talking Point
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/default.stm

rshow55 - 11:32am Aug 31, 2002 EST (# 4074 of 4079)
Can we do a better job of finding truth? YES. Click "rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have done and worked for on this thread.

Hollywood often does the best it can. With some of the same limitations I have -- limitations Casey was clear about -- worried about -- limitations that were at the heart of his "suggestion" (I promised to do as he suggested) about coming in through The New York Times.

If the NYT can't get an idea across -- who can?

You can ask the same question about Hollywood.

Maybe we're coming up with some workable answers.

But I'm trying to deal with them, in light of Casey's advice - and not break promises I made to him - except for reasons he'd understand.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

How can people be so stupid? And yet often so smart?

That's Plato's problem - and part of our problems, too.

Back in a while - but want to gather some thoughts.

(some might be interested in what a search of "movie" or "cia" or "debuting, one spy, unshaken" or "Damon" or "Affleck" or "cassandra" might turn up on this thread.)

wrcooper - 11:56am Aug 31, 2002 EST (# 4075 of 4079)

rshow55 8/31/02 10:10am

You're evading the questions.

What are your sources? That shouldn't be hard to answer. You shouldn't have to think about that and get back to me. You should have that information off the top of your head. Have you confirmed your sources? Did you verify the data from another authoritative source? Easy questions, and if you can't answer them promptly and easily, then I become suspicious you're hiding something.

I am mathematically competent to understand your reasoning. I have a B.S. in mathematics from Northwestern University, and I should be able to follow your argument. So just lay it out. If I have any trouble following it, I'll ask the appropriate questions. But don't give me this malarkey that you want a recognized engineer to review it. If you're not willing to explain forthrightly how you came up with those curious cost numbers--10³ to 10⁶ time more for BMD system than for countermeasures--then I become suspicious again. I begin to think you're pulling numbers out of a hat. This wouldn't look good, would it, coming from the guy who tells everybody to check things, to look only at the hard facts?

So where did the numbers come from? No more links to previous posts. Just tell me. Write it all down again. Show me.

rshow55 - 12:40pm Aug 31, 2002 EST (# 4076 of 4079)
Can we do a better job of finding truth? YES. Click "rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have done and worked for on this thread.

Cooper - why don't you call me on the telephone ?

We can arrange to find out who you are.

There's a good deal of correpondence about that on this thread -- some of which I saved after you deleted it at a "convenient" time - on the presumption that you're not who you say you are.

I'm taking my time. Watching a movie, and talking to my wife, in fact.

You have enough references, cited quite recently - to keep you busy.

If I've made a specific claim, with respect to a specific weapons system, that you have a specific reason to doubt - - you might point it out.

The notion of pretrial discovery is appropriate indeed.

(3 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense