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.

rshow55 - 07:19am Jul 16, 2002 EST (# 3082 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.

Somehow, I find that I can't use my customary posting procedure. Whoever in the government keeps fooling with my computer -- please undo it.

I feel like reposting this:

rshowalter - 04:48am Jul 29, 2001 EST #7562
Robert Showalter mrshowalter@thedawn.com

http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee86193/42 contains this:

" There's a problem with long and complex. And another problem with short. . . . . The long and the short of it, I think, is that you need both long and short."

In the end - I'd like to help get across some simple messages:

1. Missile defense is not only a bad strategic idea -- it is also a huge technical fraud, with no technical viability whatsoever, and that can be shown in public.

2. The US military industrial complex is now, in decisive ways, fundamentally fraudulent and corrupt.

3. For a while, the rest of the world has to take responsibility for action without dependence on the cooperation of the United States, or deference to its good judgement, until some basic issues in the United States get righted.

The problem with these messages is not that they are complicated, but that people are not yet ready to hear them, in ways that can let them "detonate" through the culture, as true ideas, at the right time, can do. But people are more ready than before. The flow of the news, and editorial opinion, in this paper and many others, worldwide, illustrates that.

Let me cite a poem, that I feel is fairly concise, on the issue of "detonation" -- Chain Breakers . . . . http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee79f4e/618

lchic - 07:43am Jul 16, 2002 EST (# 3083 of 17697)
ultimately TRUTH outs : TRUTH has to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong foundation

If the government was a 'good' government it wouldn't intimidate via obstruction!

lchic - 08:09am Jul 16, 2002 EST (# 3084 of 17697)
ultimately TRUTH outs : TRUTH has to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong foundation

The world awaits Greenspan

The recent push and clamour in IT, to develop systems, to patch up holes re Year2000, together with the demise of gutted companies, has left many highly skilled IT workers looking for work.

Nations with long term vision would try to re-utilise this gifted labour force encouraging (and paying) them to implement selected valuable and necessary projects.

lchic - 08:14am Jul 16, 2002 EST (# 3085 of 17697)
ultimately TRUTH outs : TRUTH has to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong foundation

First dots
then spots
next chicken pox

Scratch the president

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/16/opinion/16KRUG.html

lchic - 08:18am Jul 16, 2002 EST (# 3086 of 17697)
ultimately TRUTH outs : TRUTH has to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong foundation

"" a sordid tale of cronyism, of misuse of power, of cozy backroom money-grubbing
^{http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/16/opinion/16KRIS.html}

rshowalt - 09:25am Jul 16, 2002 EST (# 3087 of 17697)

Talked to my shrink yesterday -- and he'd talked to the CIA. Now, if the CIA would only acknowledge in writing or in a clearly traceable way that I could use, what they've told me, and him -- a lot might be sorted out.

I'm working carefully, and with honorable conduct and the national interest in mind. Some facts about the past, that matter for the present and the future, ought to be clarified. They can be, by "connecting the dots." There are a lot of checkable "dots" on this thread - including parts, now removed, from Sept 2000 on.

I've said before that the payoffs to getting me debriefed would be substantial - very much in the national interest- and stand by that.

A key posting about checkable facts: MD2116 rshow55 5/9/02 9:34am

(14610 following messages)

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