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.

rshow55 - 10:48am Mar 23, 2003 EST (# 10356 of 10411)
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.

Any of a long list of eloquent people could - if they faced some essentials that are emotional, religious, practical and logical at once. Lchic and I have been working toward these essentials, and I think we've made headway.

http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7b2bd/1636 Some basic facts and relations are alas, controversial when they actually matter for thought or action, and that is a key problem for our time.

" People say and do things. .

" What people say and do have consequences, for themselves and for other people. .

" People need to deal with and understand these consequences, for all sorts of practical, down to earth reasons. .

" So everybody has a stake in right answers on questions of fact that they have to use as assumptions for what they say and do.

If the bolded point, just above, were more widely and deeply understood - and linked to the simple points just above it -- a great many things in the world would be better - and people, just as they are, could solve many of the most important and practical problems they face. As of now, the idea that "everybody has a stake in right answers on questions of fact that they have to use as assumptions for what they say and do" is actively denied whenever anyone with power actually objects.

Instead, the point should be common ground.

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.

One can believe in absolute truth about basic things - especially basic physical things - and facts about real events - including facts about interconnections - and yet acknowledge that there can be many different perspectives about these facts - many different cultural views of these facts. Many maps. Many valid maps.

Even many kinds of mistakes, muddles, and idiosyncratic views that aren't worth much attention - aren't worth fightning about.

But when things matter enough, it is important to recognize the difference between valid statements in different frames of reference and muddle.

Muddle and deception. Things that match when you check them, and things that do not.

For essential reasons - there have to be much more effective restrictions on the right to lie, decieve, or self decieve, when it matters enough - and the points are clear enough.

That would be all it would take to defend against the nonsense of Sayyid Qutb and his followers - the nonsense of AlQueda.

But it would take a revolution, in some ways that matter. The liberal, modern tradition would have to become more honest.

lchic - 10:49am Mar 23, 2003 EST (# 10357 of 10411)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

No 'U2' equivs hovering over the clerical-terrorist-teachins this past decade ... and had there been, would anyone have had 'the language' to translate those teachings from Arabic rantings into intelligible American-English?

almarst2003 - 11:08am Mar 23, 2003 EST (# 10358 of 10411)

Pope: war threatens fate of humanity - http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030322/ap_wo_en_ge/gen_eu_vatican_pope_iraq_2

Some people may feel safe. The have NO FACE and NO HUMANITY.

(53 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense