New York Times on the Web Forums
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
(871 previous messages)
- 02:59pm Mar 27, 2002 EST (#872
If you do careful arithmetic, and a competent job - -
"everything" will be quite sufficient -- and inexpensive, as well.
You'd think that the information in the March 13 OpEd Advertorial
, along with the fine references from good sources that accompany
it,, would destroy the "Star Wars" boondoggle. You'd think that the
information in this thread, and the responses of MD system
supporters would destroy "Star Wars." But it isn't going to happen
without some more force behind it.
But at the same time -- it seems to me (maybe I'm too much of an
optimist) that conditions for real peace, and a much more sensible
world, may be taking shape - - some of them due to the work of
The New York Times . . . a paper I'm proud to take, including
work done by Thomas Friedman - - who may have facilitated some
reasonable, hopeful responses on the part of Arab leaders.
- 03:13pm Mar 27, 2002 EST (#873
The term 'Castles in the air' comes to mind.
- 03:22pm Mar 27, 2002 EST (#874
Robert Fiske (living treasure - journalist)
Peace and the 'mind' ...
Fiske made the point there
has been no 'unity' within or between Arab States for much of the
past century : The 'TALKS' wouldn't suceed : his feeling --
America isn't making much effort.
- 03:26pm Mar 27, 2002 EST (#875
Thanks for the kudos. I was just posting a reported "fact" vis a
vis the ABL. It is these reported facts that should form the basis
of the "umpiring" that you espouse.
- 03:36pm Mar 27, 2002 EST (#876
A nuke in time saves nine - ?
- 03:54pm Mar 27, 2002 EST (#877
3/27/02 3:26pm . . . it seems to me that a lot of things are
converging -- and doing so in ways that ought to be strongly in the
interest of the United States.
When things are complicated enough, truth is our only hope of
finding our ways to decent solutions. That means we have to find
ways to keep people from "filter(ing) out information that might
undermine their views.
You could argue that I've been moving slowly since the time of
the following postings.
Challenge, questions, and invokation of the need for force:
3/20/02 7:58pm ... MD729 rshow55
Comment and response:
3/23/02 1:28am ... MD783-784 rshow55
Perhaps I have been moving slowly, but the reason is that I've
felt that things have been moving toward a situation where a lot of
things could get solved.
A key reason to want technical answers to questions about missile
defense 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
. 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.
I think people are getting interested - not just because missile
defense is important, but because we are now in a situation where --
if we just faced some things -- both the United States, and the rest
of the world, could be both safer and more prosperous.
For future reference, I've reposted some things I had posted for
a long time on the previous MD thread, about my background, from
#272-279 Pscywar, Casablanca -- and terror http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/288
- 04:07pm Mar 27, 2002 EST (#878
China - US should stop interfering in Taiwan issue - http://library.northernlight.com/ME20020326010000040.html?cb=0&dx=1006&sc=0#doc
To this I would add the following:
Before the "enlightened" West usurpates the position of the
"teacher", "cop", "judge" and the "executor" of the rest of the
nations, it would be helpful for it to rectify its own "small"
inconveniences. For US - to settle the issue of slavery. For US and
Australia - the compensation of the Native population, suffered from
real GENOCID. Those two and Canada should never forget whoes land
they are occupying. For Britain, France, Spain, Belgium and Danemark
- the fate of the lands and the nations they merselesly exploited
for hundreds of years. For Germany - the GENOCID and war crimes they
commited in Europe.
After that, may be, they may claim to have any authority to
lecture the other nations on their internal affairs, let along
New York Times on the Web Forums