New York Times Readers Opinions
The New York Times
Home
Job Market
Real Estate
Automobiles
News
International
National
Washington
Campaigns
Business
Technology
Science
Health
Sports
New York Region
Education
Weather
Obituaries
NYT Front Page
Corrections
Opinion
Editorials/Op-Ed
Readers' Opinions


Features
Arts
Books
Movies
Travel
Dining & Wine
Home & Garden
Fashion & Style
New York Today
Crossword/Games
Cartoons
Magazine
Week in Review
Multimedia
College
Learning Network
Services
Archive
Classifieds
Book a Trip
Personals
Theater Tickets
Premium Products
NYT Store
NYT Mobile
E-Cards & More
About NYTDigital
Jobs at NYTDigital
Online Media Kit
Our Advertisers
Member_Center
Your Profile
E-Mail Preferences
News Tracker
Premium Account
Site Help
Privacy Policy
Newspaper
Home Delivery
Customer Service
Electronic Edition
Media Kit
Community Affairs
Text Version
TipsGo to Advanced Search
Search Options divide
go to Member Center Log Out
  

 [F] 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.


Earliest Messages Previous Messages Recent Messages Outline (4923 previous messages)

rshow55 - 09:25pm Oct 15, 2002 EST (# 4924 of 4927) Delete Message
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.

The Guardian Thread Psychwarfare, Casablanca . . . and terror http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/0 is data - it is a record - and it was altered today.

I'm supposed to be the only person who can delete my own posts - and this posting was deleted - for reasons that I think may be significant. (I wouldn't have thought to delete the posting #219 - July 25, 2001 - but can see why some people might want to.)

To delete the posting that was, till today, # 219 - a posting 15 months old -- wasn't a casual act.

The links reproduced above link to postings prior to March 2002 that are preserved on CD.

The work cited in these deleted postings, I believe, was what it was intended to be - a major service to national interest - a successful effort to build bridges of communication that were necessary, and have borne fruit since.

1998 rshow55 5/4/02 10:35am . . . 1999 rshow55 5/4/02 10:39am
2000 rshow55 5/4/02 11:36am

- - -

It seems to me that there are things that need to be CHECKED.

rshow55 - 10:35pm Oct 15, 2002 EST (# 4925 of 4927) Delete Message
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.

I've worked hard, and Dawn has worked hard - to solidify lines of communication that are of vital, big scale life and death concern to the United States of America, and the whole world. A communication model. http://www.worldtrans.org/TP/TP1/TP1-17.HTML

Here is the index page of a CD -- “Missile Defense - New York Times on the Web - Science Forum Archive - - rshowalt 7/19/02 9:16am - by distinguished anonymous posters and M. Robert Showalter.” The CD is now available in updated form, with key Guardian Talk threads, and demonstration programs on polynomial processing.

If you click " rshow55" in the upper left hand corner of this postings, you'll access some links - some, set out in groups of links, that connect to postings that tell something of my background. I say that I worked under Bill Casey. And yet I have produced no records. How can anybody be surprised, considering the priority of the work I was entrusted to do?

More Messages Recent Messages (2 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Your Preferences

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  / Missile Defense





Home | Back to Readers' Opinions Back to Top


Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company | Privacy Policy | Contact Us