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 (5310 previous messages)

gisterme - 12:16am Oct 28, 2002 EST (# 5311 of 5324)

lchic 10/27/02 1:40am

"...Gisterme I'm hearing you say

Let's nuke frogs and scorpions!..."

You should get an appointment to have your hearing/reading comprehension checked. Who said anything about nukeing anybody except you? Are you now regretting publishing your own story, that you said held a lot of truth? This is the story: ( lchic 10/26/02 5:05pm )

"...A scorpion wanted to cross a river, but could not swim. So he asked a frog to ferry him across on his back. “Certainly not,” said the frog, “If I take you on my back, you’ll sting me.” “No I won’t,” said the scorpion, “because if I do, we’ll both drown.” The frog saw the logic in this, so he let the scorpion hop on, and struck out across the water. Half way across, he felt a terrible pain. The scorpion had stung him. As the two of them sank below the ripples, the frog asked the scorpion: “Why on earth did you do that?” Replied the drowning scorpion, “Because this is the Middle East.”..."

You then said:

"..."...Like many jokes, that one contains more truth than one would wish..."

I said (gisterme 10/27/02 12:26am)

"Can't disagree with that lchic. That's exactly why we need a missile defense. If those folks (meaning Iraq, N. Korea and Iran) weren't trying so hard to get nuclear armed ballistic missiles, I might not feel that way. But they are..."

How you can jump to the conlusion that I would like to see anybody nuked from that exchange is beyond me. It does make me doubt your sanity. Why does my desire to see frogs protected from scorpions so offend you, lchic? And how is development of a missile defense to protect innocent people from being nuked transformed in your mind to a threat of nuking somebody? That's the mode we've lived in since the fiftys. Anybody that proscribes to the continuation of MAD is just that...mad.

"...Isn't that taking the Carlyle profit motive a little too far?"

Huh? What does profit motive of any kind have to do with your story of the frog and the scorpion? You seem to have been in a bit over your head last night, lchic.

gisterme - 12:36am Oct 28, 2002 EST (# 5312 of 5324)

lchic 10/26/02 5:41pm

"...Cohesive inclusive societies that offer 'roles' for all their players are a defence in themselves..."

That's exactly why the United States is the most phenomonally successful nation-state in history.

"...Making 'others'..."

Like Robert trying to make "standins" that have no basis in reality? He constantly trys to make me be Condoleeza Rice. He knows I'm not but continues anyway, just to stroke his ego I suppose.

"...Creating 'outsiders'..."

Just like you proposed to do by making the "emeritus/elite" responsible for deciding the future of humanity. All non-emeritus are outsiders in that they are not counted worthy of producing worthwhile opinions.

"...Not seeking 'truth'..."

You and Robert don't only "not seek truth" you deny it when you are immersed in it.

"...Failing in the 'empathy' department..."

Like saying that a desire to defend one's self is somehow a desire to nuke somebody else. Like blaming the innocent for the acts of tyrants. Yup. Like transforming all non-emeritus to second class citizen status.

"...All these factors lead to unhappy people who may go on to 'kick' the system for negative attention."

You've made a pretty comprehensive listing of your and Robert's modus operandi on this thread. No wonder you tow never seem very happy.

You seem to be failing in your own paragidm in that you don't get much attention of any kind from anybody that you might consider important.

gisterme - 12:51am Oct 28, 2002 EST (# 5313 of 5324)

rshow55 10/26/02 8:49pm


Since this is a missile defense forum, let's take that test program as an example. The entire MD test program is a checking procedure to insure that the system lives up to the design standards it is intended to meet.

Get a life, Robert. You're just upset that you are not privvy to details that are none of your business.

No modern engineering project could ever be completed successfully without checking and standards. Why do you try to fabricate the illusion that checking and standards do not exist? You're a few hundred years too late to claim them as Showalter innovations.

I suppose your nonsensical question falls under the "failure to seek the truth" part of the Showalter/lchic world conquest method. Either that or you reveal an astounding ignorance about real engineering development projects or real development projects of any kind.

Which is it, Robert?

More Messages Recent Messages (11 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