New York Times Readers Opinions
The New York Times

Home
Job Market
Real Estate
Automobiles
News
International
National
Washington
Business
Technology
Science
Health
Sports
New York Region
Education
Weather
Obituaries
NYT Front Page
Corrections
Opinion
Editorials/Op-Ed
Readers' Opinions


Features
Arts
Books
Movies
Travel
Dining & Wine
Home & Garden
Fashion & Style
Crossword/Games
Cartoons
Magazine
Week in Review
Multimedia
College
Learning Network
Services
Archive
Classifieds
Book a Trip
Personals
Theater Tickets
Premium Products
NYT Store
NYT Mobile
E-Cards & More
About NYTDigital
Jobs at NYTDigital
Online Media Kit
Our Advertisers
Member_Center
Your Profile
E-Mail Preferences
News Tracker
Premium Account
Site Help
Privacy Policy
Newspaper
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 (7722 previous messages)

gisterme - 09:19pm Jan 16, 2003 EST (# 7723 of 7740)

<a href="/webin/WebX?14@93.qZRkatbU0Vn^619425@.f28e622/9225">commondata 1/16/03 4:05am</a>

"...And if you're so convinced of the impossibility of militarily useful resonance or lensing effects, what would your reaction be to NK or Iraq building one?..."

I'd rather see them build their own HAARP than see them build nuclear bombs. Better yet, I'd rather see them feed their people first and share our HAARP data. Perhaps if they would join the world, they would even be invited to participate in the research.

lchic - 09:24pm Jan 16, 2003 EST (# 7724 of 7740)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Doesn't

The English in the States

Lay mainly with Bill Gates?

nb The question is in plain English.

Do you 'the multimonikered poster' work 'lifeguard duty' on a think tank?

______

So who supervisers the 'thoughts' that pop up from the tank?

How are thoughts ranked?

Why are some ideas considered to have value - others not?

How does political philosophy hinder implemenatation of a best solution?

How is 'best' measured and for whom?

If the USA is so good at developing 'think tanks' and placing 'thinkers' into them .... why does the States have the problems it does -- and internationally -- why is it so 'hard' for Americans to 'travel' the world these days?

lchic - 09:28pm Jan 16, 2003 EST (# 7725 of 7740)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Gisteme just 'popped up' on the board ... was Gisteme emerging from 'a think tank' ... Ever driven a 'think tank' into combat Gisterme?

If a novice is in a think tank would s/he wear water wings?

How can brainstorm be channed into 'think', think to workable/acceptable ideas?

gisterme - 09:38pm Jan 16, 2003 EST (# 7726 of 7740)

<a href="/webin/WebX?14@93.qZRkatbU0Vn^619425@.f28e622/9233">lchic 1/16/03 8:55am</a>

"...Johnson writes under many more monikers ..."

There's another possibility WRT the lunarchick cogitation about "Johnson".

Lunarchick just can't face the possibility that all those different people could disagree with her and her idol...so she reduces them to just one to make the prospects more palatable.

Hmmm. :-) Whatever works, I suppose.

Oh, by the way, is the old "rshowalter" who used to post here really the same person as "rshow55" and is the old "lunarchick" really the same person as "lchic"? Just thought I'd mention that since we're considering conspiracy theories...

I think they are. Especially Showalter...the self-erasing attributes of his rambles could hardly be duplicated. They just both got booted off the board and had to come back as somebody else.

I wonder if the same could have happened to manjumicha?

gisterme - 09:44pm Jan 16, 2003 EST (# 7727 of 7740)

<a href="/webin/WebX?14@93.qZRkatbU0Vn^619425@.f28e622/9231">commondata 1/16/03 8:11am</a>

"...Gisterme's the smartest..."

Why, thanks, commondata!

gisterme - 09:56pm Jan 16, 2003 EST (# 7728 of 7740)

What's up with the dysfunctional link references? Did the NYT finally get tired of somebody posting endless links to (his own) links to (his own) links? If so, looks like he's gotten around it by referencing his own links (probably duplilcate stuff) on other boards.

Wow.

Does Johnson do that, lchic?

gisterme - 10:12pm Jan 16, 2003 EST (# 7729 of 7740)

lchic 09:28pm Jan 16, 2003 EST (#7725)

"...Gisteme just 'popped up' on the board ...

Gasping for breath, no doubt.

"...was Gisteme emerging from 'a think tank'..."

A "hot tub" would be far more possible than a "think tank". Now that I "think" of it, they might both be considered to be the same thing. Maybe if you and Robert got into a hot tub together you could "think" of something. Robert's wife might not like it, though.

"... Ever driven a 'think tank' into combat Gisterme?..."

Cute, lchic; but, Naa. :-) However, I do believe that "think tanks" are designed to help prevent "real tanks" from having to go into combat.

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 2003 The New York Times Company | Privacy Policy | Contact Us