New York Times Forums
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  / 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.


Earliest Messages Previous Messages Recent Messages Outline (3364 previous messages)

rshow55 - 08:05am Jul 31, 2002 EST (# 3365 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.

For some purposes, I feel that this forum has worked extremely well . . . .

In very large part, it is valuable because it involves lchic - - probably the most valuable mind I've ever had the honor of being in contact with.

And a first-rate animal and human being, as well !

MD3316-17 rshow55 7/28/02 10:14am

rshow55 - 12:41pm Jul 31, 2002 EST (# 3366 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.

http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@193.6nAjaSEWh71.0@.ee7a163/320

rshow55 - 04:11pm Jul 31, 2002 EST (# 3367 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.

MD1074 rshow55 7/31/02 9:05am starts as follows:

http://www.subvertise.org/details.php?code=453 shows a very effective poster which includes this quote:

" Why of course the people don't want war -- but after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship . . Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country. ......... Hermann Goering --- Nuremberg Trials.

We need to do better. One way to do better is to find ways to see that key facts are checked.

MD1075 rshow55 4/4/02 1:20pm ... MD1076 rshow55 4/4/02 1:21pm

The checking process proposed in MD1076-76 and many times elsewhere on this thread has been much slowed down because of a problem of mine. One that ought to be easily solved. Surprising how difficult it has turned out to be.

If I was free of security limitations - or had clear limitations, and that was in writing, or otherwise clearly checkable , then I could interact with people in workable ways - for collaborations and business relationships that fit real needs, in real circumstances.

It seems to me that there has been progress, but it has been a slow, slow thing. If the government wasn't resisting, actively and passively, it would be an easy thing. They have some reasons to resist.

Or maybe I'm going at it wrong . . . .

mazza9 - 05:14pm Jul 31, 2002 EST (# 3368 of 17697)
"Quae cum ita sunt" Caesar's Gallic Commentaries

You're gong at it wrong! Quae cum ita sunt!

More Messages Recent Messages (14329 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search
 Your Preferences

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