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 (11612 previous messages)

lchic - 10:13am May 12, 2003 EST (# 11613 of 11631)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Failure to check fact(s) equates with an eventual 'built-in obsolecence'

  • companies fail
  • governments fall
when they entrench and deify redundant 'truth'

*** *** ***

lchic - 10:19am May 12, 2003 EST (# 11614 of 11631)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

obsolescence

n : the property of being out of date and not current

****************

Truth

Truth is a comprehensive term that in all of its nuances implies accuracy and honesty

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=truth

lchic - 10:26am May 12, 2003 EST (# 11615 of 11631)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

How's daddy doing?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=553&ncid=751&e=10&u=/ap/20030509/ap_wo_en_he/na_pol_us_people_ronald_reagan

p.s.

who actually 'ran' the US when this guy was president?

lchic - 10:48am May 12, 2003 EST (# 11616 of 11631)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

fred asked Showalter to elaborate

http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.PldeaM5X975.0@.f28e622/13187

Showalter obliged

http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.PldeaM5X975.0@.f28e622/13188

rshow55 - 10:53am May 12, 2003 EST (# 11617 of 11631)
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.

Casey had a big part. And he was subject to political compromises, and circumstantial binds - that frustrated him.

Judging, at least, from the text of

Way Out There in the Blue: Reagan, Star Wars and the End of the Cold War by Frances Fitzgerald Simon and Schuster, 2000

and similar references. The world described is a world where the relations between fact and decision were not as clear as they might have been.

lchic - 10:57am May 12, 2003 EST (# 11618 of 11631)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Cassey had 'ideals' ?

rshow55 - 10:59am May 12, 2003 EST (# 11619 of 11631)
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.

I interpreted fred's request for elaboratation in

http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.PldeaM5X975.0@.f28e622/13187

as directed to RobKettenberg. But Fred, and Lchic, and Commondata have asked me some good questions - and I've not responded completely - I'm trying to do so in ways that can be effective - and with material that can be checked as far as it goes.

No one has time enough to tell "the whole truth" about everything - nor would anyone want to bother to attend to the telling. I am trying to set out things fairly - and in ways that can be of use. Giving some thought to my own fallibilities, too.

I've sometimes thought that this thread has been noticed - and useful. That's something that could be checked. But from where I stand - it is only an inference.

More Messages Recent Messages (12 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Your Preferences

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