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 (11163 previous messages)

rshow55 - 10:12am Apr 6, 2003 EST (# 11164 of 11170) 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.

No, it was planned.

There was an ambiguity in my last posting.

The world should ask reality-checking questions when people have "gone crazy."

Often enough, people do that - and it is dangerous.

Two different antecedents. People "often" do ask "reality checking questions" - and there are costs and dangers involved.

But it is much more dangerous not to - and to keep at it till some closure is established - because craziness can be dangerous.

I think this is exactly right:

We'd be very close to a stable, peaceful world if people would check facts when it mattered enough. People wouldn't like each other so very often. But we could get along, and do a lot better.

rshow55 - 10:13am Apr 6, 2003 EST (# 11165 of 11170) 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:

"I assumed (naively) that one of the principles of Democracy is a rule of Law protecting the rights of minorities and dissidents"

Like Saddam?

There are, to say the least - tensions here - especially after September 11 - and the Treaty of Westphalia was a long time ago.

almarst2003 - 10:17am Apr 6, 2003 EST (# 11166 of 11170)

BTW.

The "How do groups and societies deal with individuals or much smaller groups that they regard as insane ?" is to tally incorrect. As you must be perfectly aware, its the "coalition of willing" that is regarded as a "small insane group" by the overhelming majority of the World population. And most people of the World are forced to think very seriously how to deal with such a "small insane group" which is also a military superpower.

almarst2003 - 10:19am Apr 6, 2003 EST (# 11167 of 11170)

Like Bush?

almarst2003 - 10:23am Apr 6, 2003 EST (# 11168 of 11170)

"Treaty of Westphalia was a long time ago"

The Roman Empire was even longer time ago. Since then we observed Colonial Empires and Ideological Empires. The New American Century one is an attempt to belnd them ALL.

rshow55 - 10:25am Apr 6, 2003 EST (# 11169 of 11170) 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 may be setting up some "shared space" !

A Communication Model http://www.worldtrans.org/TP/TP1/TP1-17.HTML

I think there are many things about the Bush administration that are crazy enough. I've been arguing for a " forceful intervention " on the subject of missile defense on this thread - and doing so at length.

But that doesn't mean he's taking unreasonable positions in the Middle East. Necessarily.

I don't think Tony Blair is crazy at all.

- - - -

We need patterns of exception handling that work well enough - and it seems to me that they may be coming into focus. Some things are being reframed - because they need to be.

More Messages Recent Messages (1 following message)

 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