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 (5148 previous messages)

rshow55 - 12:17pm Oct 23, 2002 EST (# 5149 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.

And I like lchic ! How could I not?

I believe I have the same warm feelings that George Bush must feel for Condoleezza Rice - and she must feel for him. They work together well. Talk a lot - see eye to eye about a lot of things. They are a team.

There are differences, of course. Lchic and I haven't had some of the opportunities that Rice and Bush have had.

I feel that MD10961 rshow55 1/22/02 12:49pm bears repeating here:

" My own view, at the beginning of last year, was that the risk of the world being destroyed by a nuclear "accident" -- was running about 10%/year - - a risk discounted "expected value" the equivalent of 3-4 WTC disasters per hour. With risks from terrorism on top of that.

" I think the total risks are somewhat less now - - but still terrifyingly large. When I read some of the "technical judgements" of gisterme , and Mazza , my concern doesn't get any less.

I'd add that when I consider the corruption -- or gross incompetence, on view, reasons to trust the Bush administration, on matters so long hidden -- get reduced again - and powerfully reduced.

Checking for technical facts that can be determined in the open literature, and checked by independent authorities (for instance, people in charge of writing the professional engineering exams, and similar examinations in other countries) would be a good place to start.

3050 rshow55 7/14/02 7:24pm . . 3051 lchic 7/14/02 7:27pm
3052 rshow55 7/14/02 7:36pm . . 3053 lchic 7/14/02 7:39pm
3054 rshow55 7/14/02 7:48pm .. 3055 rshow55 7/14/02 7:56pm
3056 lchic 7/14/02 7:57pm .. 3057 rshow55 7/14/02 8:11pm

There's Always Poetry 1205 http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee79f4e/1556

Before witnesses, not long ago
I blew through
Nuclear controls that apparently
hadn't been changed since the mid-60s'

Why didn't they bring me in and TALK to me?

Corruption and cowardice are the only explanations that keep hanging together over time.

5146 rshow55 10/23/02 9:26am

5147 rshow55 10/23/02 12:18pm ... 5147 rshow55 10/23/02 12:18pm
5147 rshow55 10/23/02 12:18pm .... 5147 rshow55 10/23/02 12:18pm

bbbuck - 12:23pm Oct 23, 2002 EST (# 5150 of 17697)

Some may wonder 'What and the hell is that guy doing here?'.
Well if you aren't laughing your ass off on the latest looneychic, rshow55 posts then I don't have an answer for you.
But if you are, laughing your ass off, then you can see why I tune in occasionally.

gisterme - 01:51pm Oct 23, 2002 EST (# 5151 of 17697)

commondata 10/23/02 7:05am

"...When I told you about the Iraqi death toll figures provided by the UN your intelligent and carefully considered response was "you lying communist"...

Nope. My carefully considered response was "That's a lie". You put the "communist" part on yourself. And your statement was quite untrue. What you said was:

"More Iraqis were killed in the Gulf War than have been killed by all weapons of mass destruction."

Highest estimates I've seen about Iraqi lives lost in the Gulf War was 100,000. You said that that number is higher than the number killed by all weapons of mass destruction. I wish that were true but it's just not. That's why I'd personally like to see weapons of mass destruction removed from the world.

Approximately 20 million people died as a result of WWII. Of those about 170,000 died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It's also estimated that about 400,000 American and several million Japanese lives were saved because that war ended without an invasion of Japan.

It's estimated that another 50-60 thousand on both sides died in gas attacks during WWI. God only knows how many Iranians and Kurds died in Saddams's attacks.

I think your problem with your figures may be that you've bought into the Iraqi propaganda that blames present sanctions on the US. The blame for those sanctions and the suffering and loss of life that may be associated with them lies squarely at the feet of Saddam Hussein as you well know.

You framed your untrue statement in such a way as to make it sound as if the US were responsible for every life lost in the Gulf War. As you also well know, that war was a UN action carried out by a coalition. That action successfully ended the rape of Kuwait by Saddam.

"...That seems to come about as close to a definition of hypocrisy as you're going to get..."

You do show your hypocracy along with your disingenuousness, commondata.

More Messages Recent Messages (12546 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