[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 (1834 previous messages)

rshow55 - 04:57pm Apr 28, 2002 EST (#1835 of 1841) Delete Message

Reeling, but Ready By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

"Attention President Bush: Do not listen to what people out here are saying; they're all confused. The important thing is to understand how they are feeling which is more open to a realistic diplomatic solution than ever before.

I hope Friedman's right.

" Their leaders don't know how to move, so America has to chart the way with a big idea."

or support good ideas from others -- many are already in place -- to get to a workable solution.

rshow55 - 05:03pm Apr 28, 2002 EST (#1836 of 1841) Delete Message

Lies of the Cardinals By GARRY WILLS

"How St. Augustine handled a scandal in 425, and how he differs from America's Cardinals."

Wonderful on the value of truth, and the importance of standards, and checking.

. . . . .

What a wonderful thing if Wills' sermon were taken to heart.

Lies are common - - maybe 20 times more common than people usually assume. Fictions get in the way of hopeful solutions. Many of the worst things, including much involved with nuclear weapons and "missile defense" only continue because lies are permitted to stand.

almarst2020 - 05:25pm Apr 28, 2002 EST (#1837 of 1841)

Reeling, but Ready By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN - "Their leaders don't know how to move, so America has to chart the way with a big idea."

The problem is not they "don't know how to move"

The problem is "don't know to WHERE to move"

And in this case, America CAN'T and SHOULDN'T chart the way". It will not be America to or Americans to live the consequences. The only thing America can do is to offer the full and honest assistance to any solution acceptable to the majority of the Israelis and Palestinians.

"What's needed now is a U.S. plan that offers a clear-cut, phased program for a two-state solution."

I personaly don't believe in a two-state solution which will not severely compromise at least one and probably the both sides of the conflict. That looks like a "solution" only from a great distance. The Devils (plural) will show up in all the details: Control over the Water, Gasa-West Bank passage, Air space, Holly sites, Border controls, Defences and Arms, Economic disparety and interdependency. Assuming the Refugies and Jewish settlements problem will be solved.

rshow55 - 05:46pm Apr 28, 2002 EST (#1838 of 1841) Delete Message

almarst , all the problems you describe are very important. And at one level, you're right that

"The only thing America can do is to offer the full and honest assistance to any solution acceptable to the majority of the Israelis and Palestinians."

But how to find that solution? Such a solution (if it is to be a 2-state solution - and that is what's being mostly discussed) it has to be a complicated, interedependent solution -- and getting to the solution will be complex -- about as complex a scripting a movie.

A key question, many times, has been "what would it take to make a movie?" MD1231 rshow55 4/10/02 11:28am - - - (if people knew how to script a believable, detailed movie about negotiating a stable mideast peace, with the facts in the movie right -- they might know enough to make a stable peace, for real.

To get a movie scripted, ready to go - takes a lot of talking -- a lot of backing and forthing -- and a lot of details that have to be put together all at once.

Myself, I think that if anybody had a solution, clearly crafted and proposed in detail, as a basis of discussion -- that would be a contribution.

I hope Friedman's right that the Israelis and Palestinians are ready to look hard for peace. Perhaps he is. Even at the very best, a lot of the details will have to be worked out together.

In complex dealmaking, when you're trying to get a deal together, it often happens that, even in a "friendly" negotiation (and this isn't) each side needs its own representative. The US is not an impartial arbiter -- but it does have some detachment. It is allied with Israel, and everybody knows it.

If the Palestinians had another advocate (People from Russia and EU who are sympathetic) that might be very constructive. There would be detachment, but sympathy too. And lines of communication between representatives.

Often, in these things, representative have to "sell" their principles -- and be guided by them -- and eventually, complex deals get closed.

Or at least, in business and movie making, these kinds of things often work, and for deals as complicated as movies - closure is hardly thinkable without multiple, interlocked negotiatins between different representatives and principles.

Is this any simpler? If not, then this level of complexity may be necessary.

More Messages Recent Messages (3 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Email to Sysop  Your Preferences

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  / Missile Defense

Home | Site Index | Site Search | Forums | Archives | Shopping

News | Business | International | National | New York Region | NYT Front Page | Obituaries | Politics | Quick News | Sports | Science | Technology/Internet | Weather
Editorial | Op-Ed

Features | Arts | Automobiles | Books | Cartoons | Crossword | Games | Job Market | Living | Magazine | Real Estate | Travel | Week in Review

Help/Feedback | Classifieds | Services | New York Today

Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company