New York Times on the Web Forums Science

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 - 07:49pm Feb 22, 2002 EST (#11756 of 11766)

almarst-2001 2/22/02 6:48pm

"Do you think the simple "objection" could affect the US policy?"

Objection by whom? With what force?

You face problems of explanation and persuasion.

Perhaps you think some things should be "self evident" - - well if they're not -- don't be surprised. Most causes face a job of explanation and persuasion.

I know there are barriers, and they are big. And a lot of direct approaches have failed. But positions do change. And some things do clarify.

We've done something here. MD11727 lchic 2/22/02 2:56pm

rshow55 - 08:45pm Feb 22, 2002 EST (#11757 of 11766)

SN1342 markk46b "Science in the News" 8/23/00 2:44am . SN1343 rshowalt "Science in the News" 8/23/00 7:31am " ....there's a phrase that I read once. Three words.

" Hitler went unchecked. "

The context was political and military. But facts and ideas went unchecked too. Hitler subverted an entire society based on nonsense and lies, many ornately detailed, and destroyed much of the world in doing so. He hoped, in the senses that matter to most of us, to destroy the whole world. In the ways that mattered, he wasn't effectively checked at the level of ideas.

In the preface to Brecht's Galileo , there's something like this.

" It takes courage to face the fact that sometimes the truth is defeated because the truth is, somehow, too weak."

I find the idea that truth can be "somehow, too weak" haunting.

We need techniques and conventions that make it stronger.

MD4211 rshowalter 5/25/01 6:05pm

SN1427 rshowalter "Science in the News" 8/29/00 8:03am

" Scientific evidence, combined with other evidence and persuasive work, may in the future help establish this truth, which has been, somehow, too weak, on a firmer basis than has been done so far. " - - -

almarst-2001 - 08:50pm Feb 22, 2002 EST (#11758 of 11766)

A Merciful War - http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/01/opinion/01KRIS.html

"But now aid is pouring in and lives are being saved on an enormous scale"

Why wasn't aid pouring BEFORE 9/11? Instead, the strict sunctions where imposed.

"international organizations were retreating from Afghanistan even before 9/11 because of the arrests of Christian aid workers."

What about non-Christian aid workers? Wasn't it a case of spreading the Christianity in Afganistan? What spreading the Christianity has to do with humanitarian aid?

"enough time has passed since Vietnam"

That's the problem. There are thousends of Vietnamese TODAY dying from effects of Agent Orange.

rshow55 - 08:59pm Feb 22, 2002 EST (#11759 of 11766)

Of course you have a point. Not that Kristoff is wrong about scorekeeping -- but that America so often is.

I agree. Working toward consistent standards may seem a small thing - but it is essential, again and again, here.

And yes, even Kristoff and often other Americans are provincial. So are others. But with better scorekeeping, things could improve.

Weapons of mass destruction (all of them) should be ruled out, in practical terms, even with very imperfect scorekeeping -- if there is decency in scorekeeping at all.

There needs to be. Not just in America - - but America has to be part of it -- because of her power, a central part.

almarst-2001 - 09:00pm Feb 22, 2002 EST (#11760 of 11766)

rshow55 2/22/02 8:45pm

"the truth is defeated because the truth is, somehow, too weak."

Rather too unpopular or UNPATRIOTIC!

rshow55 - 09:04pm Feb 22, 2002 EST (#11761 of 11766)

It takes WORK to make it stronger - - and very often, and insistence on consistency relationships.

Progress doesn't often happen - - but progress is, in fact, often made. I'm hopeful.

If European and Russian leaders with names cared enough to say so - in somewhat organized ways, I think a lot could be done -- moving from where we are.

(back in 15 minutes.)

almarst-2001 - 09:11pm Feb 22, 2002 EST (#11762 of 11766)

"If European and Russian leaders with names cared enough"

All the leaders care mostly for their and, at best, their nation's interests.

Show me the leader who took unpopular decision based on morality.

rshow55 - 09:28pm Feb 22, 2002 EST (#11763 of 11766)

Such leaders may be hard to find. But they lead so that moral stances are popular enough -- that often happens -- and moral positions can be quite practical, too.

Almarst , you've objected, mostly, to US policies that in your view, and mine, don't make any sense, from reasonable perspectives, including the perspective of the American people.

These policies are unpopular , and a cause of concern, pretty widely.

It might not be so hard to find leaders who care enough to want to get some facts straight.

(3 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense