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 (10783 previous messages)

rshow55 - 11:31am Mar 30, 2003 EST (# 10784 of 10791) 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.

I've posted the sermon, WHEN THE FOUNDATIONS ARE SHAKING by James Slatton http://www.mrshowalter.net/sermon.html many times on this thread - 8678-79 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.bphraZaF6lI.2337562@.f28e622/10204 refers to president Bush's religious confidence, which many clergymen find misplaced, and shows many of those links.

1527-8 http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7b2bd/1694

One fact, it seems to me, ought to be evident to anyone who has ever spent much time around religious people, including religious professionals. It is that the average clergyman is not, can't be expected to be, very much stronger, or intellectually or morally more resiliant, than other average professionals. The very best clergymen can't be expected to be very much wiser or brighter or more resistant to social pressures than top-of-the line members of other professionals can reasonably be expected to be, unless you believe that God is touching their minds at every step in their thinking. Looking at their output - that seems unlikely.

The kinds of problems, weaknesses, and mistakes that we've seen in the recent NASA shuttle disaster occur - and have to be expected - or at least reasonably suspected - in the doings of religoius professionals. There's no reason to think that hasn't been true in past years, and past centuries, and plenty of reason to think that it has been true.

You don't have to take a position about the existence of God - or of divine inspiration - to doubt that everybody who thinks they're inspired actually is.

When it matters enough, for a practical purpose -people can check things - and resolve issues worth resolving. (Clergymen, including my grandfather, have been clear about that for many generations. Sometimes faith is indispensible. But sometimes, on practical things, faith is simply negligence. There needs to be an obligation to check - and check competently, and think carefully, when it matters enough. )

We need judgement. WHEN THE FOUNDATIONS ARE SHAKING by James Slatton http://www.mrshowalter.net/sermon.html makes that point well.

If people agreed on that much, there would be a lot of room for improvement, from where we are.

lchic - 11:33am Mar 30, 2003 EST (# 10785 of 10791)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Alex - you've gone quiet .... you say you've lived in Boston USA for a number of years ... so what's right about the USA, what could be put right, ... no comment .... OK so continue ... what's wrong with the USA ---

:)

lchic - 11:36am Mar 30, 2003 EST (# 10786 of 10791)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

How dumb is Saddam ?

As i've said before, had he a brain --- rather than a bank account & Sad-istic ego

the guy would have walked

would have prevented war

would have saved on death and destruction

------

Why didn't the world show him his tyranical report card

His Boys don't do too well in the school of human kindness either!

lchic - 11:38am Mar 30, 2003 EST (# 10787 of 10791)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

MIG 25's

Iraq has 24 - RU supplied - speed of 2000 m p h

Gosh!

Do they need to refuel --- in mid-air?

lchic - 11:43am Mar 30, 2003 EST (# 10788 of 10791)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

'DEATH' is seen as 'glory' by the suicide Islamic bomber ....

Any US leaflets from the sky advising - 'otherwise' ?

Seems the crews are coming in from the PAN-ARABIC-PAN-ISLAMIC sweep of countries!

lchic - 11:45am Mar 30, 2003 EST (# 10789 of 10791)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Mind versus Missile

My contention has always been that it's the MIND and MINDSET that must be regarded as more important than MD

More Messages Recent Messages (2 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