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 (12083 previous messages)

rshow55 - 04:06pm May 27, 2003 EST (# 12084 of 12132)
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've made some gains since 1952, but we've lost some very substantial things as well:

Eisenhower wanted to combine the high achievements in administration and technocratic management that the US had up and running - with democracy and American ideals - in the service of a common good the country agreed on.

Eisenhower wanted to diffuse the high achievements in administration and technocratic management that the US had up and running , in the service of world welfare, world prosperity, and world peace, and to meet the competition of totalitarian systems.

We've lost a lot that we had working well - in the areas where Eisenhower felt most confident.

A big part of the problem was that there were big showstoppers in analysis, simulation, and negotiating that stopped progress - and wouldn't have to do so any longer.

But patterns of large scale planning and rationality that were taken for granted by Eisenhower have weaked very much - and been almost completely discredited.

Theatricality has very often replaced "the boring virtues that certified public accountants esteem."

The technique of the theater is now so advanced - and has diffused so widely - that people sometimes seem to have lost hope in separating fact from fiction - and mistakes from lies.

That classifies a lot of things that might be hoped for out of existence.

The story behind Shuttle Rescue Might Have Been Possible By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS is an exemplary one - and there are many others.

rshow55 - 04:09pm May 27, 2003 EST (# 12085 of 12132)
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.

http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.SPxQbaNabbF.2406344@.f28e622/13714 the social instability of the program was wrenching - the murders were wrenching - and the inability of the academics at Cornell to deal with the murderer, once he was identified, was wrenching.

I was in mourning, and very upset, when I got "recruited."

Stability is a big problem.

lchic - 04:11pm May 27, 2003 EST (# 12086 of 12132)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

That 'might have been rescue' concept arose because publicly QUESTIONS were asked and answered ....

rshow55 - 04:11pm May 27, 2003 EST (# 12087 of 12132)
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.

The program was an atrocity in some essential ways - people were being used as "experimental animals" in some real senses - but the justification seemed adequate to Eisenhower, I think. He was very afraid that the world was going to blow up - literally end - unless some problems with instability were solved.

I never had any sense that my welfare amounted to much, set beside the other concerns involved.

I worked as well as I could.

rshow55 - 04:13pm May 27, 2003 EST (# 12088 of 12132)
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 thought that was right, too.

lchic - 04:14pm May 27, 2003 EST (# 12089 of 12132)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Showalter - you worked hard, and are still working hard ... and the significance of your work is that it could be used to improve life chances and opportunity world over. That's something to be proud of - without a doubt!

More Messages Recent Messages (43 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Your Preferences

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