3 ms·
Sure do. And of course, missile defense is hard so I have no problem believing there may not have been a successful interception (I see no evidence here one way
by beefman 9y ago
Sure do. And of course, missile defense is hard so I have no problem believing there may not have been a successful interception (I see no evidence here one way or the other). My point was only that the grandparent is incorrect — this is not good journalism. The journalist took a story ready-made from a bunch of people with an angle. I'm familiar with the practice, as a good friend of mine has won prestigious awards for publishing a ready-made story from an NGO.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- bobmoretti 9y agoYou're 100% correct that this was a case of good presentation and not investigation by the reporter. Questions: 1. Can you point me where to find more info on UCS ignoring results that contradict their political positions? 2. What "angle" does a nonproliferation shop have in this matter? 3. The article attempts to present some evidence (obviously mostly not to a level required for independent, academic confirmation). So when you see you "see no evidence here", are you saying you need to see it presented in greater detail and to a higher standard, or do you think that the evidence is flawed or misrepresented in some way?