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.

almarst-2001 - 11:24am Mar 10, 2002 EST (#322 of 330)

And, isn't it enough to declare yourself as the greatest democracy and defender of freedom to destroy all who may not see it this way?

mazza9 - 11:48am Mar 10, 2002 EST (#323 of 330)
Louis Mazza

almarst:

So you're a Leninist. How nice. I subscribe to Jesus the prince of PEACE. You quote Lenin a de faco murderer.

I knew that there was no chance of logic where you are concerned. You are programmed and unable to think for yourself. To bad.

I don't subsribe to anyone's death. Suitcase nuclear weapons were developed by your mentor's society. The Soviet Union subscribed to any and all weapons to achieve their end. That's why there are suitcase nucs and they are "on the market." but you won't acknowlege that. Your culpability is the destabilizing force in the world. You are the evil one and trying to deflect the reality of your position is the challenge to world peace.

I for one happen to be an optimist who believes that if mankind can focus on and try to attain a higher order accomplishment, SPACE, all of mankind benefits.

I must admit that I did meet with my conspirators last night. Our plans are complete and our agents are spreading out all over America with only one thing to accomplish. Last night I attended the National Accordian Convention in Plano Texas and our goal is the spreading of music, understanding and fellowship to all of mankind.

LouMazza

rshow55 - 12:22pm Mar 10, 2002 EST (#324 of 330)

almarst , I think you're doing great posting.

I found your reference http://www.bernal.co.uk/Research/Racak.html in almarst-2001 3/10/02 12:54am very interesting. Compelling. Disturbing.

A central question is how we check facts (including some in the reference you posted) how we relate facts together, and how we fit those facts into ideas and patterns that matter to us, for understanding, for ordering of relationships, and for justification of what we do.

"Facts" alone, whether they are right or wrong can't do anything. They are inputs into decisions by people who have power of decision about something.

Facts and ideas, combined together in space and time so that people can "connect the dots", as Erica Goode says in Finding Answers In Secret Plots http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/10/weekinreview/10GOOD.html form the ideas that people and groups have. -- These ideas are patterns, which work well enough to sustain action and belief in some ways, though they may be totally invalid otherwise. These ideas, constructed by "connecting the dots" may produce grossly pathological results -- fueling hatred, wars, and cycles of poverty. Or they may be correct.

To judge that, one checks the "facts" "connected together" and one sees if the pattern conjured up fits more facts - - including many more facts. The process of judging this, like the process of putting the "explanation" together - happens in people's minds - and can't be forced. But the matching process -- the "connecting of the dots" -- is what effective persuasion is all about. And the internet offers new ways, some shown here, of connecting information in space and time that would otherwise be diffused and unconnectable. That's a source of new opportunities.

In the case of Missile Defense, facts and relations set out and referenced in MD84 rshow55 3/2/02 10:52am can be connected up to show how much fraud, how much muddle, has motivated much of American defense policy. Setting out the facts, and discussing connection of the dots, takes work -- and is important to the extent that people with power care about the answers, and follow the logic.

The more well validated "dots" -- the more valid, checkable things that have to fit together at the same time, the less the chances for horror.

Some of the most horrible things in history - most perhaps, and most now, are based on "ideas" that have been crazy - grossly out of proportion -- ideas that neglect important things -- among them the humanity of real human beings.

We're living in a terrible time. Facts alone aren't going to solve anything. But facts, considered together, and considered, may help solve a great deal.

But it seems to me that if enough people, including leaders, get concerned enough, we have some soluble problems here. If they do not, we don't.

rshow55 - 12:24pm Mar 10, 2002 EST (#325 of 330)

It also seems to me that there's great stuff in the TIMES today.

I find the image which accompanies Goode's piece, terribly haunting. We need to understand, and deal with, irrational forces and emotions -- lest manageable, modifiable stresses between civilizations become causes for massive injury and death.

There's another image I find haunting - of a man reduced to selling a child . . . in Children as Barter in a Famished Land By BARRY BEARAK http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/08/international/asia/08HUNG.html

Many horrors seem not only terrible, but strange , and stupid . Including many of the worst horrors. Maybe there's some hope.

(5 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense