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 (10422 previous messages)

rshow55 - 12:07pm Mar 24, 2003 EST (# 10423 of 10438) 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.

almarst2003 - 11:57am Mar 24, 2003 EST (# 10425 you can make that case. And it is an important case to make.

I think the Bush administration wrong about a lot of stuff - I don't take back anything I've ever said on this thread - but they've got some things straight - and are trying to work through some good balances.

Often, I think they're a lot more balanced than you are, almarst - though not always.

Your reasons for concern are real, and I share them. But there are a lot of countervailing forces, too - and I'm optimistic - both economically, and in terms of human rights.

But I feel sure about this .

We have to get past Treaty of Westphalia standards - and negotiate into being an international law that can work.

And in many, many, many places, we need to establish a workable amount of shared space, and negotiate decent and workable social contracts into being.

It seems to me that things that were absolutely hopeless before are now in a condition where they can be well solved, if people keep at it.

Right now, we have a mess - but bad as things are, I think things are becoming more orderly and more hopeful. With plenty to fear, and plenty of work to do.

bbbuck - 12:08pm Mar 24, 2003 EST (# 10424 of 10438)

rshow55....

you're an idiot.

rshow55 - 12:16pm Mar 24, 2003 EST (# 10425 of 10438) 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.

10354-6 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.eVa5aQP955p.1246459@.f28e622/11900

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.

If that point were settled, news folks would have some red faces, and politicians redder faces - but a lot could be sorted out.

almarst2003 - 03:01pm Mar 24, 2003 EST (# 10426 of 10438)

BB team has long ago declared - "F**K your FACTS. Our facts as sum of $BOMBS$ are mightier".

May be that what they learned as kids at home or school?

Red Cross fears humanitarian crisis in Basra - http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L24226975.htm

almarst2003 - 03:07pm Mar 24, 2003 EST (# 10427 of 10438)

High Court Nixes Challenge to Domestic Spy Powers - http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=558&ncid=703&e=4&u=/ap/20030324/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_terrorism

More Messages Recent Messages (11 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