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 (10908 previous messages)

lchic - 02:22pm Apr 1, 2003 EST (# 10909 of 10914)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

coherence - 2: logical and orderly and consistent relation of parts

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=coherence%20

lchic - 02:25pm Apr 1, 2003 EST (# 10910 of 10914)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Post 10907 Quote "" So lets get some coherence .... bring out the sound trucks and remember: Many hands make light work and many minds make human laser work.

~~~~~~~

I'd opt for MIND over MATTER

rshow55 - 05:35pm Apr 1, 2003 EST (# 10911 of 10914) 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.

We seem to be having some disagreements about facts.

I wish I thought Tony Blair had somebody looking at this thread. I'd be honored to have the opportunity to ask the PM a question. It is a simple one - one other lawyers who have actually worked in court should recognize. It is basic - and there is an enormous amount of hard-won experience about it. Lawyers, lamentably often, represent clients who lie to them, or who are delusional. Reasonable practice under these circumstances may be complicated - but some basic patterns are clear. The Prime Minister of the UK, who has worked long and hard representing Bush administration interests, faces such a problem.

. Prime Minister, if you suspect that the Bush administration is lying to you, or delusional - what should you do, in the interest of the United States - in the interest of the UK - and in your own interest?

The press has been busy - and there are many wonderful pieces. These have interested me:

. Fresh setbacks on road to Baghdad? It's all part of the plan Simon Hoggart Tuesday April 1, 2003 http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/comment/0,12956,926937,00.html

The Guardian Leader (editorial) today

. Rumsfeld's hostage http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/comment/0,12956,926906,00.html

is rather different, and more critical of Blair and the Bush administration that the one yesterday:

. No going back British troops cannot be pulled out now http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,9115,926102,00.html

Some of the things on the permanent record of this thread are worth checking - and, as almarst points out - "really scary".

10766-77 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.DDrzax2g6jx.2755407@.f28e622/12316

lchic - 08:54am Apr 1, 2003 EST (# 10890 asks:

Did anyone know the 'war plan' .... not this way ... the CNN guy (who's moved to opposing paper) seemed to know of a 'plan'!

rshow55 - 09:15am Apr 1, 2003 EST (# 10891

. The "plan" was for the US military to show that it could inflict some pain that Iraq had been planning on , and then walk in, moving just fast enough so that opposing forces could surrender to us in an orderly fashion, and so that the showers of flowers expected could happen in a photogenic fashion.

. gisterme - 06:43pm Mar 14, 2003 EST (# 9944 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.DDrzax2g6jx.2755407@.f28e622/11489

Perhaps I'm misjudging how much rank gisterme has - but it would seem to be more rank than Secretary of State Powell.

More Messages Recent Messages (3 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