New York Times Readers Opinions
The New York Times
Job Market
Real Estate
New York Region
NYT Front Page
Readers' Opinions

Dining & Wine
Home & Garden
Fashion & Style
New York Today
Week in Review
Learning Network
Book a Trip
Theater Tickets
Premium Products
NYT Store
NYT Mobile
E-Cards & More
About NYTDigital
Jobs at NYTDigital
Online Media Kit
Our Advertisers
Your Profile
E-Mail Preferences
News Tracker
Premium Account
Site Help
Privacy Policy
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 (5143 previous messages)

rshow55 - 09:17am Oct 23, 2002 EST (# 5144 of 5146) 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 analogies between US military policy and patterns of enronation are uncomfortably close. Perhaps some things are coming to a head. . . . . Paul Krugman has been speaking clearly about that - in columns and in the magazine this week: For Richer

If I'm right about who gisterme is, some politicians know about this thread, and are asking questions. Perhaps not only nationally, but internationally, too. If those questions are sensible and responsible, that means that some things long hidden - sometimes "hidden in plain sight" - are going to be understood and exposed.

The NYT Missile Defense board has been busy since MD4679 rshow55 9/30/02 8:34am

MD4739-40 rshow55 10/3/02 9:14am

To give a sense of my sense of my situation and my problems - here's a sheet I've given to some people over the last few weeks . . . 4572 rshow55 9/26/02 5:15pm sets out that sheet.

Links to CIA and my security problems, this thread: 3773-3778 rshow55 8/17/02 5:58pm

Issues of humanity are practical concerns if we are to make peace stable. We're human beings 4363-4366 rshow55 9/18/02 7:42am

4368_69 rshow55 9/18/02 11:11am :

Enough is going badly enough - things are out of balance enough -- there's enough crazy behavior - that people ought to seriously consider getting some key facts established - so that we'd know enough - about the past, and about ourselves - so that stable, peaceful relations might have a decent chance. If world leaders want some things clarified - they need to ask.

4419 rshow55 9/19/02 2:05pm : "Here's a quote from a mystery story writer, Dashiell Hammet in The Thin Man , 1933. Hammet's speaking of a sexy, interesting, treacherous character named "Mimi". He's asked by a police detective what to make of what she says:

" The chief thing," I advised him, "is not to let her wear you out. When you catch her in a lie, she admits it and gives you another lie to take its place, and when you catch he in that one, admits it, and gives you still another, and so on. Most people . . . get discouraged after you've caught them in the third or fourth straight lie and fall back on the truth or silence, but not Mimi. She keeps trying, and you've got to be careful or you'll find yourself believing her, not because she seems to be telling the truth, but simply because you're tired of disbelieving her. "

The United States, in its diplomatic and military fuctions, can be too much like that.

If world leaders want some things clarified, questions of US veracity are going to have to be adressed. If leaders want these matters clarified, these issues can be -- and I believe that it would be greatly to the benefit of the United States to have them clarified.

The "missile defense" boondoggle is one fine place to start, because so many of the technical issues are so clear.

Lchic and I have been proceeding with our work on the NYT MD forum on the assumption (or fiction) that it is monitored by staffed organizations -(for details, click rshow55 in the upper left hand corner of this posting ). At a time when basic patterns of international law are being renegotiated, the discourse may be of interest to specialists - and the channel it represents may be of international use. If we're proceeding on the basis of a fiction, it is a fiction that may protype patterns that are not fictional at some later time.

Explosive instabilities: 4426

rshow55 - 09:19am Oct 23, 2002 EST (# 5145 of 5146) 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.

Explosive instabilities: 4426 rshow55 9/19/02 4:34pm

More Messages Recent Messages (1 following message)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  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