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 - 10:06am Mar 29, 2003 EST (# 10692 of 10706)
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.

Sometimes this thread gets a little heavy - but it has some wonderful writing, as well. Gisterme posted a very nice story about a talking dog , for instance.

9695-96 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.8lyXaD8z6De.2194479@.f28e622/11237

includes that story, and other matters.

- - - -

A lot of things aren't happening by accident - and this can be terrible - or hopeful - depending on how sensible we are.

A reason things can be sorted out so often, on things that matter, is that basic patterns very often repeat again and again. http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7b2bd/1705

- -

Crazy patterns can be very orderly, too. And people can be convinced by them. Without checking how the patterns are beautiful, and how they are ugly - they can't be dealt with.

- -

These pieces are joke - and bear reading.

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

http://www.youngmuslims.ca/online_library/books/milestones/index_2.asp

http://www.youngmuslims.ca/online_library/books/milestones/chapter_7.asp

With the idea of disciplined beauty we can deal with these very orderly, very symmetric patterns of ideas - without accepting them.

There are some things we have to fight about, and should.

We hurt our cause when we lie. Bush and Blair are right about a lot. Wrong about some things, too.

rshow55 - 10:08am Mar 29, 2003 EST (# 10693 of 10706)
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.

Correction to above:

"These pieces are no joke - and bear reading."

Sorry I didn't catch my mistake. But glad that this thread has become a more solid record, because it bars deletions.

almarst2003 - 10:41am Mar 29, 2003 EST (# 10694 of 10706)

The victory at any cost will lead to increase targeting of civilians and civilian ifrastructure, suttering the idea of being accepted as liberators.

This will in turn increase the popular resistance and lead to prolonged partisan war against occupation combined with internal ethnic and religious fights. The mini-civil war within a war.

The neighboring nations will have no choice but to ether passively or actively support their ethnic and religious minorities knowing wery well the occupation will be very short and unstable with a single goal - saving the face at a minimal cost. They will sence the opportunity and exploit the popular rage and historical animosities.

The US-British force are going to face a nightmare. Military, humanitarian and political.

HOW ON EARTH CAN SO MANY PEOPLE BE SO DUPED TO SUPPORT ALL OF THIS AT THE SAME TIME: WAR, TROOPS and PRESIDENT?

bbbuck - 11:03am Mar 29, 2003 EST (# 10695 of 10706)

Does this idiot ever shut up?

Go back to the bush forum you fcking idiot.

rshow55 - 11:12am Mar 29, 2003 EST (# 10696 of 10706)
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.

Almarst raises very important points. I wonder, if Putin called Blair, what Blair would say?

Better outcomes than almarst rightly worries about might well be possible.

That would be a credit to both Putin, and Blair, and the whole world.

If leaders of nation states wanted some key things fixed - they could be fixed. But there have to be some limits, that actually work - if not on the right to lie - at least on the right to evade checking.

(10 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense