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.

lchic - 06:54am Oct 28, 2002 EST (# 5326 of 5341)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

"Monsters combine the worst features of the animal kingdom with human malevonance" | Gilmore

Monsters: Evil Beings, Mythical Beasts, and All Manner of Imaginary Terrors
by David D. Gilmore
University of Pennsylvania Press;
ISBN: 0812237021; (October 2002)

lchic - 07:01am Oct 28, 2002 EST (# 5327 of 5341)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Too much for boy to bear | Theatre | Moscow

http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/story.jsp?story=346562

lchic - 07:07am Oct 28, 2002 EST (# 5328 of 5341)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

""Russia refused this weekend to abandon its efforts to bring Iran's nuclear power programme on line, which it is feared will help Iran to develop nuclear weapons.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=346284

rshow55 - 07:28am Oct 28, 2002 EST (# 5329 of 5341)
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.

5313 gisterme 10/28/02 12:51am takes me to task, and, stripping a statement from context, says something logically correct - and then erects a straw-man argument far removed from what gisterme knows to be a fair statement of the case. Gisterme responds to a line in rshow55 10/26/02 8:49pm with these words:

". . . WHY NO CHECKING PROCEDURES and STANDARDS ?..."

And of course there are some checking procedures and some standards. Enron had some checking procedures and standards, and so did Anderson - even at their worst - even when they were "honored in the breach" by framing answers, or arithmetic, in actively misleading ways.

But are they the right questions - - and are enough questions being asked? Do the questions and answers, connected together, give a fair, reasonable view of the situation?

Gisterme goes on to argue that I may have an "astounding ignorance about real engineering development projects or real development projects of any kind."

Let's talk "missile defense" - as it has been discussed on this board. I'm writing out 1895-7 rshow55 4/30/02 9:09am again below, because we've been dealing with some key issues over and over.

Gisterme's responses are, much too often, like Enron's disclosures - constructions that produce travesties of the truth - and for sad, but increasingly clear reasons.

Because gisterme's responses are so often enronation - - it makes sense to review what I have said, and can know, about who (s)he is.

(12 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense