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 (4932 previous messages)

rshow55 - 08:35am Oct 16, 2002 EST (# 4933 of 4936) 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.

2532 supersnooper58 6/14/02 9:27pm deals well with the meaning of successful but unrealistic tests, and starts:

"A fool and his money are soon parted." P.T. Barnum

" Missile shield test a success, says Pentagon" . . .

rshow55 - 08:37am Oct 16, 2002 EST (# 4934 of 4936) 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 posting of July 25, 2001 that was deleted from Psychwar . . . was also deleted from Paradigm Shift .... whose getting there?

    The posting before that, 08:10pm Jul 18, 2001 BST http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7726f/511 bears rereading, I think. Here is some of it.

    Bertotdt Brecht's essay, WRITING THE TRUTH, FIVE DIFFICULTIES is in my version of his play, GALILEO , set into English by Charles Laughton, and includes this:

    " It takes courage to say that the good were defeated not because they were good, but because they were weak."

    When the truth is too weak, we have to ask: why? Was it indeed the truth? Or were there systematic barriers to the propagation of the truth -- chain breakers? Fear is a problem, and a deeply embedded one, all through the system, for journalists, for members of the government, and for people who depend on the government (that is, all of us.) And reluctance to face new ideas is, as well.

    I think some may enjoy Chain Breakers http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee79f4e/618 in this regard. Some might enjoy it more in terms of the information linked to MD6613 (link deleted)

    MD6671 (link deleted) .... contains this phrase:

    " Hitler went unchecked. "

    Hitler subverted an entire society based on nonsense and lies, many ornately detailed, and destroyed much of the world in doing so. He hoped, in the senses that matter to most of us, to destroy the whole world. In the ways that mattered, he wasn't effectively checked at the level of ideas.

    Could the situation be as serious as that now? I think so -- I've long believed that the world could easily end, on the basis of things I believe I understand from a more grounded perspective than many have, that the world could end. I'm not alone in that fear:

    . Doomsday by Rebecca Johnson , executive director of the Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4222863,00.html

    In MD6024 (link deleted) I asked gisterme , who I believe represents high officers of state, the following question "What have I said that is not in the national interest?" The issue was whether I had committed, or was proposing to commit, treason.

    gisterme replied to the question directly in these posting, and doing so conceded that issues of technical feasibility and probablility of projects, based on the open literature, can be discussed in the United States.

    MD6028 . . MD6033 . . .MD6060 (links deleted - available on CD)

    That concession is important, in part because of the mechanics of discourse in these affairs. The shroud of classification, even when only used as a threat, can slow discourse down to a crawl. For example, the Coyle Report, . . . NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE DEPLOYMENT READINESS REVIEW 10 August 2000 . . . . http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/nmdcoylerep.pdf , though not formally classified, has been restricted informally. It took months for Congressman Tierney to get it released -- something plainly in the public interest. Working outside of classification rules could be much faster -- and could happen in public -- ideally, recorded in streaming video on the net, with key calculations also on the net, and the whole world invited to see and check those calculations.

    (more)

    rshow55 - 08:38am Oct 16, 2002 EST (# 4935 of 4936) 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.

    If this were done, and somehow made public -- some key points, now supressed, might stand out - - and some good decisions might come. I've been trying to find ways to force that checking -- with someone from the administration - with a real name, a real face, and real engineering creditials at risk - on the other side. People often will not attend to fancy arguments -- especially these, where it is so often numbers that are far fetched -- not qualitative ideas alone.

    Perhaps, if it could be arranged, more might attend to a umpired fight. I might lose such an umpired, public fight, but I'm prepared to risk that.

    (more in http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7726f/511)

    More Messages Recent Messages (1 following message)

     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