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 (10672 previous messages)

rshow55 - 06:31pm Mar 28, 2003 EST (# 10673 of 10674) 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.

708 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.TiAvaHrS6qc.2092692@.f28e622/880

Almarst, it has been a long time since Eisenhower's Farewell Address http://www.geocities.com/~newgeneration/ikefw.htm of 1961- which clearly warned of things that have gone on, and gone wrong, for more than forty years.

Thats such a long time that that, even valuing our distinguished Vice President at the maximum possible influence - there's got to be more to the story than that.

I've been arguing for getting some facts checked - pretty steadily - for some while because it is important that we have some things nailed down. (click rshow55 for some details.)

Almarst , I think that in some significant ways President Bush is not fully in touch with all he should be. That doesn't mean that you have everything straight, either! Or that I do, or that anybody else does.

But there's enough data that if we really worked at it - with backing from heads of nation states - a lot could be sorted out.

rshow55 - 08:58am Feb 11, 2003 EST (# 8811 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.TiAvaHrS6qc.2092692@.f28e622/10337 includes this

6999-7003 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@93.a229aP3zYzn^397117@.f28e622/8521

I am doing my best to play my part in "Wizard's Chess" http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/05/opinion/05SUN1.html

Right now the world must seem like a potentially deadly game of three-dimensional chess to the the Bush administration. . . . .

America now faces a national security challenge of extraordinary complexity. Washington must simultaneously cope with three separate and potentially grave threats — from Iraq, from North Korea and from the threat of reconstituted international terrorist networks. It is absolutely essential that appropriate priorities be set.

Right now, if leaders face their problems - and insist that key issues be checked to closure we're in a situation where the key problems in the world can be resolved well - in the interest of all mankind - and in ways that are distinctly in the interest of the United States of America as a nation.

One nice thing about big mistakes is that, once you see them, they are often clear, and easy to explain.

. . .

President Bush may be as good a man as Ronald Dittmore (the manager of the Space Shuttle program). But Dittmore has been capable of misjudgements, and mistakes, as are we all. He is not enough better to be trusted unconditionally. Checking - finding right answers - would be relatively easy to do in terms of money and time - and the costs of not doing so are vastly greater.

This is a hopeful time, if responsible people take the time to do some easy, inexpensive homework - and hesitate to kill without fully considered reasons. .

When things are complicated, truth is our only hope: http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/296

Truth is a substantial hope.

I think that if staffs of the nation states in NATO looked carefully at http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/296 , and sections following in Psychwar, Casablanca . . . . and terror - and thought about what would make them PROUD - as representatives of their nations, and as human beings - a great deal would sort out.

http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/296 includes discussion of how the key questions of fact about missile defense could be checked to closure - something that current procedure militates against.

http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.TiAvaHrS6qc.2092692@.f28e622/5041 includes more discussion of the point, and includes this:

The weakness of truth - and the presentation of it has been a key concern at the TIMES for a long time -

More Messages Recent Messages (1 following message)

 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