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 (10696 previous messages)

dccougar - 11:24am Mar 29, 2003 EST (# 10697 of 10706)
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts.

Alarmist: "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."

This is not "an important point"; this is the propaganda of a pessimist. Once the current regime is exterminated, the populace will find themselves free of a repressive and murderous dictator. They'll find aid coming in, and they'll find the coalition is not there to steal their oil, but rather to buy it. What's to resist?

almarst2003 - 11:33am Mar 29, 2003 EST (# 10698 of 10706)

dccougar - 11:24am Mar 29, 2003 EST (# 10697 of 10697)

We all watch the same things but see it differently. It shouldn't take that long to see who have recognised the "elephant", if any.

rshow55 - 11:39am Mar 29, 2003 EST (# 10699 of 10706) 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.

Cougar - from their point of view, there's plenty to resist.

Historically - how often have invaders from a very different culture been embraced, rather than resisted?

The argument you make would have applied to Vietnam, as well. From an econonomic point of view - there were tremendous arguments for resisting the Communists. What happened?

Almarst raises an important point.

And pessimists, in history, and especially the history of war - have often been right.

There is plenty to be careful about.

rshow55 - 11:47am Mar 29, 2003 EST (# 10700 of 10706) 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.

Plenty to be hopeful about, too.

For one thing - there is a lot of ambivalence on all sides.

Everybody - at almost all strategic positions and tactical positions - has much to fear - and some things they don't have that they'd like, as well.

There's a lot of UN contact - and communications going every which way.

Ideas about negotiation should be taken seriously - both now - and if war continues to the end.

There's a lot of damping in the system, in a lot of ways.

If people are careful - we might end up with a stable situation. Step by step - some reasonable things might converge - if people aren't too stupid.

Though, of course, people often are.

dccougar - 11:52am Mar 29, 2003 EST (# 10701 of 10706)
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts.

Historically - how often have invaders from a very different culture been embraced, rather than resisted?

Historically - how often have invaders from a very different culture immediately given back the country and all its natural resources to the people of that country? Historically - how often have invaders from a very different culture helped the "conquered" country rebuild it into something better than it was?

Japan comes to mind. Japan loves America. (Inexplicably, they also love Italians and the French, but there's no accounting for taste. :^)

almarst2003 - 11:52am Mar 29, 2003 EST (# 10702 of 10706)

dccougar - 11:24am Mar 29, 2003 EST (# 10697 of 10697)

If people would be absolutly RATIONAL they could not remain PEOPLE.

Coldn't those who bomb someone else into a "right way of life" be seen as using a HAMMER to reshape a HORSE into EAGLE so it can start enjoing the flight?

More Messages Recent Messages (4 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