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 (11889 previous messages)

rshow55 - 05:31pm May 23, 2003 EST (# 11890 of 11903)
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'm stumped about "working ethics" in the 21st century - feeling sort of like an "intelligent" Komodo Dragon - out of my time - and not feeling so intelligent, either. I've been trying to think of ways out of my box - and the hopes I've had, with lchic , for making the world much better.

(Eisenhower felt that, if analysis was better - and simulation and planning was better - world rates of GNP growth above 6% should have been possible and sustainable till poverty was a thing of the past - and I used to think so, too.) But there's a problem.

Questions like "what's fair" and "what's actually true" are decisively important - and the more complicated things are - the more important.

I'm moving slowly - afraid to post some details about my life that lchic has, quite rightly , asked me to do. In the strange world we now live in - I'm having to go slowly.

I'm stumped by a long list of problems which would have been easy to solve in the 1950's or early 1960's - given some entre to elites - just by stating the facts, and having people sort things out. In the national interest, the wider world public interest, and their own. Easy for most of the people Reston wrote of with respect in Deadline , for instance.

The world has changes a lot since the early 1950's - and some huge gains have been made in some areas. In some others, the losses have been very real.

I guess I'm an ultra-conservative. I like the ideals Eisenhower expressed in his first campaign - and tried to implement - though he was

"up to his ass in alligators"

in some key ways - and got stumped in some key spots - often for analytical reasons involving simulation and planning.

One thing I feel hopeful about. There are unique solutions. People can find them. Unfortunately, some of the most important solutions for human problems require involvements of nation states that used to be easily thought of - but now seem unthinkable.

rshow55 - 06:01pm May 23, 2003 EST (# 11891 of 11903)
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 think that if someone objective, and fully informed, could report on what has happened on this thread since September 2000 - it would be interesting journalism - and give a lot of people reason to be "proud to take The New York Times" - problems and all. And a lot of people would be very proud of lchic. I'd be due for some criticism - some of it pretty heavy - but I think I'd be able to hold my head up.

If I could "wave a magic wand" - I'd get the TIMES praised, big time - for their efforts on this thread - and paid something real - though not a big part of their budget - maybe a million bucks.

I'd see to it that lchic was praised and paid, too. Big time.

Of course - if I could wave a wand - I'd do some other things - like get a fair recounting of my past - even on a "no fault" basis up to now - with a fair chance of moving on.

- -

If there was money involved - and a detective did a complete study of what has happened - I think "the average reader of The New York Times" would be interested and impressed.

fredmoore - 08:43pm May 23, 2003 EST (# 11892 of 11903)

A bit of levity for these tense missile toten' times where everyone is on de fence:

Bbbuck was again summoned to the bedroom of Lady Looney. She was lying on the bed, naked.

"Bbbuck", she asked, "do you think I have a beuutiful body?".

"Yes, your Ladyship. I think you have a fantastic body."

"Good Bbbuck", she said, "are you a good buck?"

"Indeed I am, Madam!", replied Bbbuck excitedly.

"Then buck off. It's April fool's day!"

Now in many many ways that is quite beautiful but in others ... in ways that really matter, ugly.

Cheers

PS The names in this story have been changed to protect the innocent.

mazza9 - 12:29am May 24, 2003 EST (# 11893 of 11903)
"Quae cum ita sunt" Caesar's Gallic Commentaries

Hey Fred!! Was your post a Gory Al or an Al e Goreee?

fredmoore - 03:01am May 24, 2003 EST (# 11894 of 11903)

Lou ...

Allus allum lavat!

lchic - 04:22am May 24, 2003 EST (# 11895 of 11903)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

fredless

    Tasteless!

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