[F] 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.

Earliest Messages Previous Messages Recent Messages Outline (724 previous messages)

lchic - 06:58pm Mar 20, 2002 EST (#725 of 730)

Literature isn't Science ?

PostModernIsm :

    The debates center around these six major issues:
    -the relation of artwork to social context
    -the relation of art and of theory to political action and to the dominant social order
    -the relation of cultural practices to the transformation or maintenance of society in all its aspects
    -the relation of the collapse of traditional philosophical foundations to the possibility of critical distance from and effective critique of the status quo
    -the relation of an image-dominated comsumer society to artistic practice
    -the future of a Western tradition that now appears more heterogenous than previously thought even while it appears insufficiently tolerant of (open to) multiplicity
    In attempt to sum up the entire concept:
    "At the very least, postmodernism highlights the multiplication of voices, questions, and conflicts that has shattered what once seemed to be (although it never really was) the placid unanimity of the great tradition and of the West that gloried in it."
    So... in attempt to reduce this very broad mode of thought and study, we can see Post Modernism as essentially attempting to define and understand our present complex social issues, and acknowledge how they have been affected by past behaviors of our culture and how they will form our future.
Ah so GI agrees that much regarding Nuclear Missiles lies in HEADS ... the MIND dominates this board ... much more than the technical boondoggle antique side of the debate ... So GI has moved towards RATIONALITY
{the state of having good sense and sound judgment; "GI's rationality may have been previously impaired"; "GI formerly relied less on reason than on rousing our emotions" }

lchic - 07:19pm Mar 20, 2002 EST (#726 of 730)

Let the KILLING begin ....

    revealing a system that will closely resemble courts-martial but will not give full right of appeal. Some tribunals may take place on naval vessels for security reasons.
    Defendants will be granted a military lawyer and will have the right to hire a civilian counsel. To secure a conviction, the panel of between three and seven officers must vote by a majority of at least two-thirds. A death sentence will require a unanimous vote.

lchic - 07:44pm Mar 20, 2002 EST (#727 of 730)

Leaders - negotiators

Seven principles of breakthrough negotiation

    Principle 1: Breakthrough negotiators shape the structure of their situations
    Principle 2: Breakthrough negotiators organize to learn
    Principle 3: Breakthrough negotiators are masters of process design
    Principle 4: Breakthrough negotiators foster agreement when possible but employ force when necessary
    Principle 5: Breakthrough negotiators anticipate and manage conflict
    Principle 6: Breakthrough negotiators build momentum toward agreement
    Principle 7: Breakthrough negotiators lead from the middle

rshow55 - 07:58pm Mar 20, 2002 EST (#728 of 730) Delete Message

Looks to me like all but one of the necessary conditions for a breakthrough negotiation are in place. The one that isn't, that is absolutely necessary, is sufficient, properly validated, force.

If leaders of nation states wanted RIGHT ANSWERS on questions of technical fact -- clear enough to be beyond politics - and convincing to a VERY wide range of people -- who might disagree on much else -- that sufficient and properly validated force would quickly come to exist. Much of it would exist in the form of media interest.

A key reason to want the technical answers is that those answers would move toward larger answers to questions the whole world needs, and is coming to know it needs:

What is the real national interest of the United States? Not just the interest of the military-industrial complex.


Can the United States be honest enough and trustworthy enough about what it asks for, and agrees to, so that its interests can be reasonably, efficiently, justly accomodated by the rest of the world?

The technical issues of "missile defense" are a good place to start -- because those technical answers are so clear -- and answering them forces these larger questions to be adressed.

More Messages Recent Messages (2 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Email to Sysop  Your Preferences

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  / Missile Defense

Home | Site Index | Site Search | Forums | Archives | Shopping

News | Business | International | National | New York Region | NYT Front Page | Obituaries | Politics | Quick News | Sports | Science | Technology/Internet | Weather
Editorial | Op-Ed

Features | Arts | Automobiles | Books | Cartoons | Crossword | Games | Job Market | Living | Magazine | Real Estate | Travel | Week in Review

Help/Feedback | Classifieds | Services | New York Today

Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company