New York Times Readers Opinions
The New York Times

Home
Job Market
Real Estate
Automobiles
News
International
National
Washington
Business
Technology
Science
Health
Sports
New York Region
Education
Weather
Obituaries
NYT Front Page
Corrections
Opinion
Editorials/Op-Ed
Readers' Opinions


Features
Arts
Books
Movies
Travel
Dining & Wine
Home & Garden
Fashion & Style
Crossword/Games
Cartoons
Magazine
Week in Review
Multimedia
College
Learning Network
Services
Archive
Classifieds
Book a Trip
Personals
Theater Tickets
Premium Products
NYT Store
NYT Mobile
E-Cards & More
About NYTDigital
Jobs at NYTDigital
Online Media Kit
Our Advertisers
Member_Center
Your Profile
E-Mail Preferences
News Tracker
Premium Account
Site Help
Privacy Policy
Newspaper
Home Delivery
Customer Service
Electronic Edition
Media Kit
Community Affairs
Text Version
TipsGo to Advanced Search
Search Options divide
go to Member Center Log Out
  

 [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 (10171 previous messages)

almarst2003 - 08:05pm Mar 18, 2003 EST (# 10172 of 10191)

In Iraq Crisis, Networks Are Megaphones for Official Views - http://www.fair.org/activism/iraq-sources-networks.html

Vatican: US, Backers Responsible Before God on Iraq - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44591-2003Mar18.html

rshow55 - 08:12pm Mar 18, 2003 EST (# 10173 of 10191) Delete Message
Can we do a better job of finding truth? YES. Click "rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have done and worked for on this thread.

I looked carefully at the links lchic set out in 10167-10168 above - and it would be good to have them put in a careful context.

They may be a significant part of a larger picture - in a world where the things that Eisenhower warned about in his FAREWELL ADDRESS of January 17, 1961. http://www.geocities.com/~newgeneration/ikefw.htmb have happened.

Oil is important - but can't be the whole story. The economic incentives for setting up and continuing conflict aren't the whole story either - though they enter into decisions made - and are probably more important than incentives connected to oil. These incentives are important to understand - and that understanding isn't going to be possible until there are ways to establish key facts and relations - even when power holders don't want theme checked well enough to "put before a jury."

To check currency concerns, and a lot else, would take staff work - subject to cross-examination.

There are major problems with valuations in market economies - problems that are inherent - and systematic misjudgements as big as the tulip frenzy - the South Sea Bubble - and the Internet bubble do occur.

It is true that modern markets - based on printed money - are linked together on systems of assumptions - and can be called a "confidence game." Values depend radically on judgement of the future - that is, expectations, gambling decisions. Oil is involved with that confidence, but big as it is - oil is only so important (the GDP of all the arab states together is less than Spain's, and not so very much larger than Israel's). The dollar is used in international exchange for a lot of reasons - primarily because most contracts in international exchange are set out in dollars (though there are more important exceptions than one can count.)

US fiscal discipline is good enough to keep US inflation where it is - and there are a lot of arbitrage opportunities in other currencies for dealers in oil or anything else.

There are plenty of things that need sorting out. Within the limitations of the Treaty of Westphalia - there are no solutions.

Whether or not thare are "Good Reasons for Going Around the U.N." as ANNE-MARIE SLAUGHTER suggests http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/18/opinion/18SLAU.html - - the basic rules of international law are being renegotiated. Because of interdependencies that cannot be escaped - the need of international law that works isn't going away - and isn't being denied.

Russia initiated contacts with the UN and the US about the UN role in Iraq today - negotiations are taking place, and need to.

If some key facts - even the key facts on something so relatively clear and simple as missile defense - could be checked to closure a lot could sort out. Leaders, eventually, are going to have to face up to the need to establish facts - even when leaders find them inconvenient. Until that happens, we'll live in an inherently unstable - inherently unjust world - no matter what else happens.

almarst2003 - 08:17pm Mar 18, 2003 EST (# 10174 of 10191)

Recommended for reading: King Fahd Addresses Nation on Iraq http://www.boston.com/dailynews/077/world/_King_Fahd_Addresses_Nation_on:.shtml

lchic - 08:51pm Mar 18, 2003 EST (# 10175 of 10191)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

^^^^ dead link

lchic - 08:54pm Mar 18, 2003 EST (# 10176 of 10191)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

King Fahd Iraq

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=King+Fahd+++Iraq+&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

More Messages Recent Messages (15 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Your Preferences

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





Home | Back to Readers' Opinions Back to Top


Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company | Privacy Policy | Contact Us