New York Times on the Web Forums Resource Area for Forum Hosts and Moderators

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.

bluestar23 - 02:13pm Oct 19, 2003 EST (# 15241 of 17697)

showalter:

"My nervous breakdown. : I had been trained to identify and solve differential equations, and sometimes simple systems of them, using the power series method (as described in Kreyzsig's Advanced Engineering Mathematics and many other texts.) I did these computations in my head - and spent much of my time doing so. This was arduous, and involved a lot of concentration. I overdid it, at a time when I believed the solution of the "hidden problem" above was cracking "before my eyes" - when I'd been told that, on delivery of that solution, AEA investors would be made whole, and AEA would be funded for success by the government. My head blew -- I collapsed, and there was memory damage -- serious enough that I had a difficult time relearning to read, and relearning much else. On this matter, only so much can be checked. But a lot can be checked. There are quite complete records on my psychiatric condition since the early 1980's."

Before reading this post, I regularly used the term "mental illness" to describe Showalter. Now, I realize I was all too correct. But the general description of Showalter's post can be read to describe his first schizophrenic break with reality....probably within the normal age range for the onset of the disease. It's just sad to see such individuals, who could be helped with modern medication, go so obviously and publicly untreated.

rshow55 - 02:29pm Oct 19, 2003 EST (# 15242 of 17697)
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.

bluestar http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.RErUbPHeYTe.1146775@.f28e622/16954 - that's savage - but also quite plainly wrong - and that can be shown. 2116, from May 2002 contains this:

"Any reputable reporter with a valid reason, or any government or university representative with a valid reason, or anyone else with a reasonable need to know that they can explain to me, can talk to my psychiatrist, and examine any and all of his records pertaining to me. I can't speak for my shrink, but I believe that he would give me a clear bill of health, so far as sanity or rationality goes, for the time he's seen me (more than 10 years.) My first psychiatrist is dead, but all his records can be made available as well. I'll authorize release of any and all hospital records on the same terms. http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.RErUbPHeYTe.1146775@.f28e622/2621

If you had a traceable name - I could sue you, and win. My shrink could, too.

rshow55 - 04:06pm Oct 19, 2003 EST (# 15243 of 17697)
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.

Bluestar , I think I could sue you, and win - but I might rather agree with you - under certain circumstances - and in a certain way.

Lchic did a fine post 14115

Stench in the Trench - easy to fall into, hard to get out of

the futility of war

http://www.firstworldwar.com/features/trenchlife.htm

How often do people have to fight? How many people really want to ? How many people, these days, know how to avoid fighting when they don't agree about everything they talk about?

14114 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.RErUbPHeYTe.1146775@.f28e622/15820 includes this:

I got a warm, fuzzy feeling when jorian 319 posted 13678 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.RErUbPHeYTe.1146775@.f28e622/15371 - which expressed ideas I hoped jorian319 was ready to set out clearly . . 14114 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.RErUbPHeYTe.1146775@.f28e622/15820

and I got another hopeful feeling when Jorian319 posted 14411 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.RErUbPHeYTe.1146775@.f28e622/16121

jorian 319 posted 13678 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.RErUbPHeYTe.1146775@.f28e622/15371 - including . .

I don't believe Showalter ever worked with Eisenhower . .

NOW . . .

Suppose I had a clear statement - usable for administrative purposes - that I never worked with Eisenhower, or Casey, or on any secret military project - and therefore was subject to no security limitations whatsoever - the government had "no interest" in my work - in the sense of "no equity - and no power over me based on security laws, or the threat of them."

Not a reading that "switched back and forth" and not an evasion of the issue. A clear answer.

For many situations a clear yes or no - if it does not oscillate - is equally useful. Clarity is all you need.

For some other situations, stability requires an oscillation between one answer and another - for logical reasons.

That's a lesson I've been working to teach - explicitly, and by example.

(2454 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Resource Area for Forum Hosts and Moderators Missile Defense