The New York Times: Readers' Opinions
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
Tips Go to Advanced Search
Search Optionsdivide
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 (10255 previous messages)

almarst2003 - 07:32am Mar 20, 2003 EST (# 10256 of 10257)

"The Treaty of Westphalia has failed"

Even if true, does it mean any small nation is now up for grabs by the mighty?

rshow55 - 07:44am Mar 20, 2003 EST (# 10257 of 10257) 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.

It better not be as simple as that - and if Russia, China, and EU countries are at all careful - it won't be like that. But people - including leaders - and surely including Blair and Bush - have to be responsible for what they say and do - and there have to be some limits on the right to lie - that transcend borders.

Unless we can anchor discourse on some agreed upon facts - set out and reinforced according to the standards that work for human beings (that is, the standards actually needed in jury trials) there is no solution.

If the basic principle that the Treaty of Westphalia has failed is accepted - workable negotiations could begin immediately - and everything is in place for a very stable, much better set of arrangements.

4419 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.duz4a2Mz59j.301635@.f28e622/5584 includes a very wrenching quote for Goering - http://www.subvertise.org/details.php?code=453 that illustrates how utterly unstable conditions are under current rules. We have to do better.

When things are complicated, truth is our only hope: http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?8@@.ee7a163/296

And a substantial hope.

Almarst , Putin and others aren't dealing with Hitler - they're dealing with Bush and Blair who, faults and all - work hard for what they think is right. You may not like them. But if people have good sense, and negotiate decently - a lot could get much better.

Some old patterns, which have long paralyzed the world - are now broken. We need new patterns better patterns - and while they are being renegotiated there's reason to fear chaos.

But we can do much better than that.

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Your Preferences

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


Enter your response, then click the POST MY MESSAGE button below.
See the
quick-edit help for more information.

Message:






Home | Back to Readers' OpinionsBack to Top


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