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 (11139 previous messages)

rshow55 - 10:15am Apr 5, 2003 EST (# 11140 of 11152) 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.

Another thing. The things that happen are as complicated as they happen to be. As connected as they happen to be.

And only in a minority of cases can we describe them well enough to be sure about what is happening in all details. A tiny minority of cases. We aren't even a billionth fast enough - and couldn't imagine what such full description would take.

But we sort out a lot.

Even so, we maintain some astonishing, ornate fictions because so few people can or will check coherently.

When those fictions get consequential enough - they ought to be checked. Before things get as far out of hand as they sometimes do these days.

Pardon me for moving slowly and platitudinously. The most important things everybody already knows.

One thing people know well - but deny intermittently, for various reasons. The world is as orderly as it looks to be when we look carefully. That's not an accident - and you don't have to invoke religion to explain the overwhelming bulk of the order people actually see.

If people simply attend to the interconnections and orders that they can find out about - damn few big lies, or big mistakes, can hold up for long.

The missile defense boondoggle is big enough, and complicated enough (and blatant enough) that it would be a good case to show what the necessary checking and focusing would actually take. There are other examples. In every case - to get honest answers, and enough interlocking detail - in the face of resistance - some power would have to be brought to bear.

U.S. Forces Roll Through Iraqi Capital By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Filed at 8:33 a.m. ET http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-War-Rdp.html ends with this:

One of the men waiting in line for water was evenhanded with his gripes.

``All are liars. Bush is a liar. Saddam is a liar,'' the man said. ``We are an exhausted people.''

We'd do better, and be less exhausted - if we could get the level of deception down. Technically, that wouldn't be so hard, if people actually wanted to do it.

jorian319 - 10:30am Apr 5, 2003 EST (# 11141 of 11152)

Iraqi news says "We slaughtered them at the airport. The Republican Guard is now mopping up the remaining American troops."

The American news tends to differ, just a little.

rshow55 - 10:48am Apr 5, 2003 EST (# 11142 of 11152) 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.

A long time back, I worked with a US military engineer who taught me a lot - and we were worrying about a piece of hardware - trying to get components that would meet a specific need. We could barely get what we needed. We ended up with some choices, none ideal. What was best?

Ray looked at me, shrugged eloquently, and said:

"Relative virginity among whores."

We chose the component that was better for the job than the others - though it still left a good deal to be desired.

It worked as well as it did. Still, thinking about American honesty - which is impressive sometimes - the phrase does stick with me.

Compared to Saddam's folks, we're very good.

But we might be better - and do better if we were.

robkettenburg03 - 01:31pm Apr 5, 2003 EST (# 11143 of 11152)

Yeah, the U.S. news is FULL OF BS, just like jorian319!

My home page - http://www.angelfire.com/ny5/robkettenburg

lchic - 02:35pm Apr 5, 2003 EST (# 11144 of 11152)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

"Water Water Everywhere

and not a drop to drink"

Water no longer coming in by 'taxi' from Kwait .... the River Euphrates and a Texan

are offering locals 'drinking quality water'

WATER on the MASLOW scale

Important to the local population

More Messages Recent Messages (8 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