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 (10337 previous messages)

rshow55 - 07:56pm Mar 22, 2003 EST (# 10338 of 10349) 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.

Time to be careful. But a hopeful time, too.

Almarst , I hope you don't mistake me for a supporter of Perle - though we do have some common ground.

Order is important. The order of the UN is important.

Here is an important (and long) article from the NYT MAGAZINE:

The Philosopher of Islamic Terror By PAUL BERMAN http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/23/magazine/23GURU.html

A lot of things look dangerous to me, but some other things look good to me. Some things need to be sorted out.

There is a vital distinction - that lchic and I have been trying to make clear. (She in her graceful way, me in my muddled, over-intellectual way.) It is the distinction between valid statements in different frames of reference and muddle.

If people could be clear about that distinction - in all the ways it matters empirically and emotionally - I think the world would be MUCH safer.

Almarst , Lchic and I have been working on this thread a long time 9005-9009 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.tMZqaegL5Jv.896877@.f28e622/10530

We've been concerned about the survival of the world for a long time 9010

and we've worked to try to communicate basic things to Russian and others for a long time 9011-1013 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.tMZqaegL5Jv.896877@.f28e622/10537

Reorderings are dangerous - but they can be good.

Lchic and I have been trying, and trying hard - to focus ideas that can address your concerns - and though I'm afraid, it seems to me that this is a time where there is a lot to fear but a lot to hope for and a lot to work for .

We need answers that fit the real needs and circumstances we're in. That's partly an intellectual problem. Disciplined beauty 128-130 http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7b085/156

Almarst , I'm sorry you're concerned and afraid - but I'm concerned, too. I only wish Putin and his advisors were as perceptive as you are.

I think this is a hopeful time, if we keep our heads, and keep working.

Almarst , I'll try to address your concerns as best I can, moving at a pace I feel I can sustain. I deeply appreciate your postings here, and though you may feel I don't understand them (and you may be right) I try to. And I respect them.

lchic - 08:18pm Mar 22, 2003 EST (# 10339 of 10349)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

When the Guardian is quoted as saying that the current matter will assist in

'Shaping the future'

And then one looks at the GU talk threads ... there's a lot of talk, many ideas, discussions -- people have many many viewpoints ...

one could regard it as muddle

or

the working through of words and concepts that will lead to improved understanding

knowing

that people generally did not want a 'war' to happen '

so

one matter that will eventually be considered

is

HOW TO STOP WARS

from

STARTING

could

EARLY INTERVENTION by the UN

with

ACCESS into Nation States

be

A SOLUTION ?

__________

lchic - 08:28pm Mar 22, 2003 EST (# 10340 of 10349)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Proverbs - Opposites

Contraria contrariis curantur. -- "Opposites are cured by their opposites."

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_proverbs

Contrary Proverbs

Two sides of the same coin (two aspects of a situation that are connected by necessity)

For every action, there is an equal and opposite government program

http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Discourse/Proverbs/English.html

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=proverbs+opposites&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&start=10&sa=N

More Messages Recent Messages (9 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