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 - 09:44am Mar 24, 2003 EST (# 10420 of 10424)
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.

Everybody can be wrong.

I can't see how the war can be going any better, from any reasonable point of view.

How it could be better - according to any reasonable American expectation.

There are a lot of angry, desperate, confused, violated, dangerous people.

In the history of technology, something interesting happens. Some of the most wonderful, ornate, detailed, well-worked out examples of a technology happen as it is about to become replaced by something else.

As wars go, this is a very impressive and humane one - very carefully done - very well executed - and very expensive.

As wars go.

Maybe war's on the way to being obsolete. It seems to me that things are a lot more damped, a lot more stable, than they used to be. Ugly and wrenching as a lot it.

This article deals with something important: :

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

Some things need to be sorted out where there is no choice but to handle problems that occur at the level of ideas on the level of ideas.

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.

I'm hoping to say some things some people might use on technical aspects of that problem today.

When people are "looking at the same thing" - but at different angles, from different perspectives - with different values and feelings - how do you tell the difference between the differences of perspective, and muddle?

How do you tell when you really do have solid agreement about enough key things that agreement and stability is possible?

That's partly a technical problem - and a problem that a lot more people are familiar with - in a lot of specific cases - than used to be the case.

almarst2003 - 09:49am Mar 24, 2003 EST (# 10421 of 10424)

"Liberated" Iraqies stat to ask questions - http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/World/iraq_safwan030322.html

"Why are you here in this country? Are you trying to take over? Are you going to take our country forever? Are the Israelis coming next? Are you here to steal our oil? When are you going to get out?"

lchic - 10:00am Mar 24, 2003 EST (# 10422 of 10424)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Iraqi-people can't ask the big questions!

They're there

because they care

to cut up the country

and give each a share

Share?

Share holders!

To take from Saddam

that very bad man

To return Iraq

to the people

To lift the repression

Eliminate supression

and hopefully Federate

with limited aggression

dR3

(2 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense