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 (5303 previous messages)

rshow55 - 10:45am Oct 27, 2002 EST (# 5304 of 5307) 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.

While I'm adressing them, I hope some people click the links gisterme has gisterme 10/27/02 12:54am , to see what is under discussion.

I never said that checking was easy. I did say that the costs of checking are often hundreds, thousands, and even millions of times less than the costs of not checking. Where those costs involve both money, and human agony - often the agony of innocent people.

Sometimes, and I think this is such a time - the cost of checking, though it might take many hours - would save many human lives per hour.

One thing one can check is the amount of effort - and the amount of connected crossreferencing, that this thread and associated threads on the Guardian show. If a staff person was interested, she might read from

307 in Psychwarfare, Casablanca . . . and terror and others might tak particular interest in a "technical problem" of mine, that had much to do with my relationship with Casey, and the ongoing efforts I've made here.

Recalling efforts by many high status people in 2000 - efforts that have gone before, and reasons our NYT- MD thread effort was undertaken - concentrating on a new approach:

After an old posting of mine on the Guardian treads was deleted, I reposted a briefing I gave for this thread's "Putin stand-in" - almarst - - that I believe staffed organizations could read with profit now. It dealt with problems that Casey cared a lot about - that Reagan cared a lot about (Reagan wanted to get rid of the thread of nukes - and wanted that badly). Issues that I discussed at length with Steve Kline. And discusses some key things about what it is to establish facts and relations, in workable human terms, and why it matters.

Here is that reposting, in Mankind's Inhumanity to Man - as natural as human goodness? : #341-356

The authors of books cited in #355-356 would be good people to consult, on the question of how how real people can find truth, in the many linked ways people have to look for it - - and they'd know a good deal about what facts were - and how facts stand, no matter how one character or another may feel about them.

I also reposted some work from this thread last year, on facing up to the past in #357-367

I'll be responding to postings #5280-3 by gisterme in more specific detail. People might want to click those three postings, and look at what they say, how they say what they say, and what they link to. 5280 gisterme 10/27/02 12:54am

More Messages Recent Messages (3 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