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 (10955 previous messages)

rshow55 - 09:22am Apr 2, 2003 EST (# 10956 of 10962) 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.

Almarst , nobody doubts that war has costs. I'm not so indignant as you. But the Slate article you just posted is interesting.

This Slate article is interesting, too:

The Wolf Who Cried Wolf in Sheep's Clothing By William Saletan Updated Tuesday, April 1, 2003, at 2:53 PM PT http://slate.msn.com/id/2080889/

"Let's consult the expert, Aesop. In the Wolf in Sheep's Clothing http://www.bartleby.com/17/1/39.html , he wrote:

"A wolf found great difficulty in getting at the sheep owing to the vigilance of the shepherd and his dogs. But one day it found the skin of a sheep that had been flayed and thrown aside, so it put it on over its own pelt and strolled down among the sheep. The lamb that belonged to the sheep, whose skin the wolf was wearing, began to follow the wolf in the sheep's clothing; so, leading the lamb a little apart, he soon made a meal off her, and for some time he succeeded in deceiving the sheep, and enjoying hearty meals.

"In the Boy Who Cried Wolf http://classics.mit.edu/Aesop/fab.1.1.html , Aesop told a different tale:

"A shepherd-boy, who watched a flock of sheep near a village, brought out the villagers three or four times by crying out, "Wolf! Wolf!" and when his neighbors came to help him, laughed at them for their pains. The wolf, however, did truly come at last. The shepherd-boy, now really alarmed, shouted in an agony of terror: "Pray, do come and help me; the wolf is killing the sheep"; but no one paid any heed to his cries, nor rendered any assistance. The wolf, having no cause of fear, at his leisure lacerated or destroyed the whole flock.

"Separately, each fable makes sense: Watch out for wolves dressed as sheep, and don't commit serial deception, or people will stop believing you. But what happens when the two stories merge into one? What happens when the serial deception consists of wolves dressing as sheep? What if people begin to suspect not that every boy who cries wolf is lying, but that every sheep is a wolf in sheep's clothing?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Deception is powerful, and has advantages, many well known. Truth has advantages, too. If stability and decent outcomes are an objective - truth has substantial advantages - and effort is needed to maintain it - and to sort out messes and falsehoods due to either muddle or deceptive intent.

Another moral, in the present circumstances - is that no one can doubt that some sheep may be unavoidably killed by mistake.

Is it worth it? I think it may be - but we have to be careful to make it so.

jorian319 - 10:01am Apr 2, 2003 EST (# 10957 of 10962)

As long as falbes are on the table, I suggest re-reading the one about "The Frogs Who Wanted a King". An admonition about Bush, with Saddam as an example.

rshow55 - 10:09am Apr 2, 2003 EST (# 10958 of 10962) 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.

The Frogs Who Wanted a King by Joseph Lauren http://holyjoe.org/poetry/lauren.htm ends with this moral:

"No matter what your lot, It might be worse. Be glad with what you’ve got"

For the war in Iraq to be worthwhile - the Iraqi situation, in Iraqi terms, has to be better than it is.

Clearly better.

jorian319 - 10:18am Apr 2, 2003 EST (# 10959 of 10962)

For the war in Iraq to be worthwhile - the Iraqi situation, in Iraqi terms, has to be better than it is. Clearly better.

For once, Robert, I agree that it is worthwhile belaboring the obvious. For all of us who have endorsed this horrible action, there can be no other vindication.

jorian319 - 10:38am Apr 2, 2003 EST (# 10960 of 10962)

http://images.radcity.net/5149/359372.mp3

How much better can it get? How much worse could it be? Listen to that above (Iraqi-born) American.

For the war in Iraq to be worthwhile - the Iraqi situation, in Iraqi terms, has to be better than it is. Clearly better.

I think we can do that.

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