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.

(256 previous messages)

rshow55 - 09:26pm Mar 7, 2002 EST (#257 of 272)

You may criticise her. But you have to accept that she talked to other people. People who liked her, respected her, and reacted. And you can't be too indignant that she didn't instantly quit her job and leave - wouldn't her rapists have hoped for that?

If, by some standards (not necessarily mine) she was imperfectly impartial - - we live in a very imperfect world.

We need to find ways to make the world more just and peaceful - - - step by step.

Criticisms of the Kosovo bombings DID have an effect on practice in Afghanistan.

Don't expect people to agree with your morality and moral weightings - no matter how sure of them you may feel.

It is hard enough to agree on facts - - and logic clear enough for stable relations. I'd be grateful if we could get that far.

To significantly reduce the risks of weapons of mass destruction -- we need to get that far.

It is easy to pick fights - - and sustain fights. What we need is enough presence of mind to look at common ground, and common facts - and come up with enough wisdom to make mass murder much less likely.

almarst-2001 - 09:30pm Mar 7, 2002 EST (#258 of 272)

In my view, the US mass media lacks the most critical ingredient - HONESTY. It showed clearly the inability to be impartial. The "liberal, left wing" is unable to criticize the Democratic President. And the "right wing" is afraid to be seen as unpatriotic and criticize any president eager to bomb some other country. Which makes a perfect cicumstances for a Democratic President to commit any War Crimes at will. He will surelly be praised as long as there are no US casualties.

SHAME!

almarst-2001 - 09:38pm Mar 7, 2002 EST (#259 of 272)

"It is hard enough to agree on facts ... To significantly reduce the risks of weapons of mass destruction"

How such "imperfect" media can establish the FACTS!

Did you asked here if she saw genocid in Kosovo? 100,000 dead Albanians the Pentagon reported as detecting by their satelites? Before bombing have started?

Is she still reporting? Today!?

almarst-2001 - 09:39pm Mar 7, 2002 EST (#260 of 272)

"common facts"

Who is going to present those in absence of the honest media?

rshow55 - 09:40pm Mar 7, 2002 EST (#261 of 272)

I understand your anger - and can see your point of view - but I don't feel as you do an all respects -- coming from another place.

There are problems with yelling "shame".

Often, there is more than enough shame to go around.

It seems to me that the usages of diplomacy have evolved for some very good reasons.

For the world to be safer, we need to fight less .

Secretary Annan was looking for a way around resistance to the fact that "most countries did not want to hear from outsiders about potentially serious problems within their borders."

That's an important goal. To achieve it -- communication has to avoid fights - - not yell "shame."

out.

rshow55 - 09:42pm Mar 7, 2002 EST (#262 of 272)

almarst-2001 3/7/02 9:38pm

I don't think she's still reporting today.

. . . .

almarst-2001 3/7/02 9:39pm

We need to find patterns that work better -- and we've discussed some of them. To get beyond a certain point, some political leaders need to ask for answers.

Out.

almarst-2001 - 09:53pm Mar 7, 2002 EST (#263 of 272)

"bad public relations"

It was BAD. Not a "bad public relations". But it was much worth what the US did in Dresden, hiroshima and Nagasaki! And dosens of other places on Earth costing millions of innocent lives. The people who did not harm a single American before the attack. The people who die till this day as result of those crimes in Japan, Vietnam and Iraq.

"bad public relations"...

The good public relations today are just too expencive. As the US just recently complained about a cost-effectiveness of the "International War Crimes Tribunals". If you follow the trial of Milosevic by the source (not was is selectively and scarcely reported in US) - you will understand. And believe me, Milosevic is not my hero.

almarst-2001 - 10:02pm Mar 7, 2002 EST (#264 of 272)

"most countries did not want to hear from outsiders about potentially serious problems within their borders."

And who are those IMPARTIAL outsiders?

And why are they so concern about the problems BEIONG their borders while having plenty to solve WITHIN?

And why don't they leave the other nations to sort their things out themselve? Do they believe they are in any way BETTER? Do you believe they are better? I DON'T!

And why their concern of the well-being of the other's cost those others their lives and property? And leaves them with a broken country? Rulled by a corrupted dictators?

ENOUGH.

mazza9 - 11:00pm Mar 7, 2002 EST (#265 of 272)
Louis Mazza

almarst-2001:

I wish you would get your facts straight regarding supposed United States wartime activities.

Let's start by adding up the deaths on both sides:

1. Stalin - 35 Million

2. Hitler - 8 Million

3. Pol Pot 3 Million

4. Kim Il Jung and son 2 Million

5. Various despots in Africa 1 Million

6. The Soviet Gulag ??? Fiddler on the roof was on this past weekend!

We're talking outright murder by starvation, machette, firing squad, gas chamber and a bullet to the back of the head.