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.

kalter.rauch - 06:51am Jan 5, 2003 EST (# 7351 of 7355)
Earth vs <^> <^> <^>

I'm STILL 50 posts behind......but I'm not totally surprised that the ideological types like commondata have actually RALLIED around Rshow...in spite of his acceptance of the "security needs" for torturing people.

I mean, Commondata preferred instead to squawk about neo-McCarthyite paranoids. What a lame-brain!!! And, of course, it goes without saying that Lunarchick is resolutely "standing by her man" in his squalid mental bunker to the bitter end.

This forum is attaining a kind of caricature/circus atmosphere. Far from being "on-topic"....it's become a melodramatic exercise in cheap street theater!!!

......not too different from the previous 7000+ exchanges which Rshow deems valuable enough to put on CD!!!

kalter.rauch - 06:56am Jan 5, 2003 EST (# 7352 of 7355)
Earth vs <^> <^> <^>

rshow55 1/5/03 6:51am

yes, Rshow we've been perusing you're rather extensive resume`......in which Kline AND GEORGE JOHNSON seem to have risen to some prominence in your mind.

Interesting......Very Interesting......

kalter.rauch - 06:58am Jan 5, 2003 EST (# 7353 of 7355)
Earth vs <^> <^> <^>

A lot of it reminds me of a certain list of patent numbers on mind control technologies.

What WERE your "mistakes" regarding the susceptibility of the myelinated neural net to stimulated electrical resonance???

rshow55 - 07:08am Jan 5, 2003 EST (# 7354 of 7355)
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.

Never talked about resonance in the myelinated part - - that I can remember. Reference please?

I think you're a fraud, Johnson - but right now I've got a posting - and then will be back to gisterme.

rshow55 - 07:08am Jan 5, 2003 EST (# 7355 of 7355)
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.

I'm responding to gisterme's last postings, so I'm a little sidetracked (but honored!) - - did want to say this - so I don't forget - I'll be back to it.

There are times (most times) where things are exactly right, or exactly wrong - and answers can be clear. Other times, clear and mutually consistent to within a sign change. Which sign? It can be a clear, important question in some ways, though not in others. The argument of design, versus the argument of evolution - is an example.

Usually, there are compelling reasons to get rid of contradictions - when that is actually possible, and makes sense in terms of costs.

But there are times - for operationally necessary reasons - rigorous reasons - functionally clear reasons - where the rule that contradiction has to be eliminated has to be set aside. There are contradictions that are necessary for function - that need to be cherished - that need to be handled carefully - sometimes that have to be switched rapidly - so that things are looked at both ways - and sometimes the switching back and forth must itself be calibrated.

I believe in free will. Almost exactly.

Yet I don't.

Both ways of looking are important, and helpful, and in important senses, true. I'm saying this now, before finishing my response to gisterme - - because there are some situations, going wrong now - where people are insisting on "clarity" where any clarity they find will be certain to be wrong for clear reasons.

Which are themselves rigorously logical at higher levels.

We need to be both tolerant and intolerant.

We need to be both harsh and gentle.

Some sequences go like this:

There's no contradiction. But there is. There's no contradiction. But there is. There's no contradiction. But there is. There's no contradiction. But there is. There's no contradiction. But there is. There's no contradiction. But there is. There's no contradiction. But there is. There's no contradiction. But there is. and so on.

For reasons no one in their sense would want to change.

God him-herself wouldn't want to - or couldn't - so far as I can tell. I think I'm on to something basic here - and have worked a while to get to it - but I'll answer gisterme before getting back to this.

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense