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 - 04:15pm Sep 26, 2002 EST (# 4571 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.

The sheet reads:

- - - - - -

Here is a copy of a CD -- “Missile Defense – New York Times on the Web – Science Forum rshowalt 7/19/02 9:16am – by distinguished anonymous posters and M. Robert Showalter.” Some of the anonymous posters are very distinguished – by their writing, and by their role – as “stand-ins” for the Bush administration, and for Vladimir Putin, of Russia. I believe that:

this project and work closely related to it now represents a sunk cost to the New York Times of more than $100,000 ;

the work involves major efforts by the Guardian-Observer of London;

the work represents a probable cost to U.S. and Russian government staffs of more than a million dollars;

for an extended time this forum has probably been (or has prototyped) the largest bandwidth, clearest line of political-military communication that has ever existed between the U.S. and Russia.

It seems to me that if we discussed my reasons for believing these things, with the disk available to both of us, and using the internet, you’d come to think those beliefs reasonable. Judging from the text on this disk, and some other correspondence, I believe that I have had the honor of working in a way that has influenced discourse and decision making at The New York Times. .

My own background is awkward, and has been awkward for The New York Times. The TIMES has given me a degree of (unconventional) support that probably exceeds the support they have ever given any other outsider. The Missile Defense forum shows much, but not all, of that support, and now comprises more than five million words of text. The sample I’m most proud of is linked as “Putin Briefing” on the index page of the enclosed disk. Another section, “Showalter Background” is also there.

On July 14th, 7:24 pm I asked this on the Missile Defense board – and the matter has been much discussed.

" Could things be arranged so that I could talk to ______, or some other professional, on technical matters, in a way so that I had reasonable confidence, and _________ had reasonable confidence, that, whatever other problems we might have, our conversation did not violate US national security laws? rshow55 7/14/02 7:24pm

It isn't possible yet. Assurances given me verbally by CIA, if they were really clear and checkable, would meet that need. But they are not clearly checkable, and not in writing. I need to get from an unusable verbal assurance from CIA that "CIA has no interest in any of my material" to an assurance, in writing, or checkable otherwise, that I can actually use.

If that were possible, I’d be able to function personally – and serve some of my private interests – including an interest in compensation from the government, for me and some old investors. But I also believe that if I were freed from my current isolation I might be able to better serve the real national interest – and interests of people of good will all over the world.

Now, we are faced with situations where, on vital issues, the truth is, in Brecht’s phrase, “somehow, too weak.” I’m working to make it stronger. M. Robert Showalter

mrshowalter@thedawn.com

- - - -

If I'm "connecting some dots" right - it seems to me that some things ought to be checked. I'm responsible for what I've said and done - and will answer responsible questions from responsible people.

rshow55 - 04:16pm Sep 26, 2002 EST (# 4572 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.

If I'm "connecting the dots" right - the United States is making some trillion dollar deployment errors - - and making other mistakes that are endangering the safety of the United States, and the rest of the world.

Seems to me that is worth checking.

bbbuck - 05:56pm Sep 26, 2002 EST (# 4573 of 17697)

I'm working slowly, carefully, checking!

And well you should sir. As the kwai chan walks softly on the rice paper not disturbing its makeup, checking should also be lightly treaded and checked thoroughly.

I have just invented a 'checking checklist'. Do you want me to e-mail it to you?

If so send it back to me properly checking the appropriate check mark boxes and then I will check what you have checked.

Slowly and carefully is how I will check it.

Hey let's all check something today.
Tonight is checkers night at my local club.
Some would call that a coincidence.

(13124 following messages)

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