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.

almarst2002 - 10:22pm Jun 5, 2003 EST (# 12338 of 12342)

The USA targeted the civilians' water supply - http://english.pravda.ru/world/20/91/368/10176_iraq.html

This is not a military target and as such, the wanton destruction of the system constitutes a war crime.

UNICEF, the UN Children's Fund, has claimed that up to 50% of the network is still destroyed or damaged. Work is being undertaken to repair the system and to provide 800,000 litres of fresh water to those areas which need it the most.

Meanwhile, the food supply to the 27 million Iraqis previously supported by their government has been restored by the World Food Programme, after an interruption of six weeks.

The Iraqi people have suffered considerable hardships at the hands of the US administration. Thousands were murdered by the incompetent and inefficient military machine, written off as "collateral damage" with a callous disregard for human life. Their homes destroyed, their water and food supplies cut off, their cultural institutions ransacked, these people thank the Americans for what they have done in mass demonstrations of hatred and defiance.

almarst2002 - 10:40pm Jun 5, 2003 EST (# 12339 of 12342)

How Guilty are NATO and the UN for Terror in Kosovo?

http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/taylor1.htm

fredmoore - 12:26am Jun 6, 2003 EST (# 12340 of 12342)

Almarst ...

"War is very pretty and very PATRIOTIC as long as its a HIGH-TECH MURDER shown by a HIGH-PAYED media.

Its very PROFITABLE to some as well. "

That is true for your 1/10th of the iceberg. Just don't be surprised if others like Tony Blair have the capacity through history to see the other 9/10ths.

Specifically, If Hitler had been invaded by a coalition of the willing in 1938 it would have been a crime by your reckoning. However that one illegal, murderous, profitous act could have saved up to 40 million lives and the well being of countless others. Knowledge comes from analysing the statistical significance of historical information (epistemology) and we are SLOWLY coming closer to a practical understanding of how our civilisations work. That is why the world is becoming a more unified cooperative place to live. Just because the high 'payed' media presents every individual tragedy in real time these days does not at all mean that the world is a more unjust domain. It simply means injustice is LESS tolerated and rightly so. We should all be grateful for the modern benefits and leaders available to us. To judge current events without recourse to an understanding of history or its epistemological implications is out of line. Our leaders despite some flaws are gradually falling into line ... not out of it.

So Power on but maybe with just some small semblance of perspective? If you could time slide, where would you want to be stuck in 1938, (given your present knowledge)? How about 1914 or 1 BC?

rshow55 - 06:07am Jun 6, 2003 EST (# 12341 of 12342)
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.

Fredmoore often has profound perspectives - but at the level of detail where people live, feel, fail, and die - there's a lot more to it than a global:

"Our leaders despite some flaws are gradually falling into line ... not out of it."

On specific questions - patterns of understanding - "falling into line" is a staged process. There are changes that are qualitative - such as the condensation of crystals from a liquid - where patterns - exact in their way, in their domain, emerge.

Ideas can be like that, and useful. Physics was discussed and dealt with for millenia before

f = ma

condensed. The condensation was useful, permanent progress.

Almarst is dealing with real "parts of the iceberg".

There are places, key ones, where we can do much better than we've done.

I took a break from posting after I read

Executive Editor of The Times and Top Deputy Step Down By JACQUES STEINBERG http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/05/national/05SHELL-PAPE.html to think about the TIMES.

I thought about a lot of things Eisenhower had worried about, and told me about. I noticed something simple - that happened to please me.

I very much liked the picture in http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/05/national/05SHELL-PAPE.html captioned:

Joseph Lelyveld, former executive editor of the Times, was named interim executive editor.

Lelyveld's face is turned the opposite way, but I was struck by the resemblance to one of the pictures I like best - and the Eisenhower liked best - a picture he thought represented a special kind of integrity - "The Architect" by Albrect Durer - a bluepoint dated 1500. Lelyveld's nose and the nose Durer drew match - and expression does, too. Lelyveld looks plenty tough to me - and looks like he cares about being right. Cares deeply. Approachably, without any surrender of his own discretion at all.

Anyway - I was struck by the resemblence when I looked at the photograph and the drawing.

And I've been struck by some analogies - and differences - between generals, including great generals, and editors.

(1 following message)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense