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 (12910 previous messages)

rshow55 - 10:08am Jul 9, 2003 EST (# 12911 of 12914)
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.

6283-6286 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.j8LLboIonIO.54927@.f28e622/7785 sets out Of Altruism, Heroism and Evolution's Gifts in the Face of Terror By NATALIE ANGIER http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/18/health/psychology/18ALTR.html is well summarized by this link. Her piece begins:

"For the wordless, formless, expectant citizens of tomorrow, here are some postcards of all that matters today:

"Today" was a time of mourning - a few days after the WTC came down.

I posted the whole article, as part of discussions then ongoing with gisterme and others right after the tragedy-crime of Sept 11, in

http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md9000s/md9299.htm http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md9000s/md9300.htm

. . .

I continue ( see http://www.mrshowalter.net/calendar1.htm . . 6286 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.j8LLboIonIO.54927@.f28e622/7788 ) . . How, as a matter of mechanics , can it be " possible to widen the moral circle" . . to shift "the boundary between us and them" in workable ways that permit more "win-win" situations, and less horror?

. How can "widening the moral circle" be done, consistently enough, predictably enough, on the personal levels where it has to happen, so that the widening works on a worldwide scale?

We need to know right from wrong in a number of senses. The NASA mess illustrates a number of things that go very wrong. Some key problems deal with repression - others with "the crowd's fury" in the face of differences - and some problems deal with basic facts about power relations in our species.

rshow55 - 10:16am Jul 9, 2003 EST (# 12912 of 12914)
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.

In Blair We Trust By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/08/opinion/08KRIS.html

Tony Blair dignifies his opponents by grappling with their arguments in a way that helps preserve civility — and that we Americans can learn from.

389 http://politicstalk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?13@@.ee7a163/422

390 http://politicstalk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?13@@.ee7a163/423

391 http://politicstalk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?13@@.ee7a163/424

393 http://politicstalk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?13@@.ee7a163/426

10068 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.j8LLboIonIO.54927@.f28e622/11613 includes a long, important quote from Adolf Berle's Power .

There are basic limitations to human power relations - and unless we understand them - we can be confident of things that are disastrously wrong.

Lchic's "Condi lines up the dots" deals with key problems http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7726f/1239

Trust has to be limited, care has to be taken, when judgements and decisions are being made.

Of judged.

rshow55 - 10:23am Jul 9, 2003 EST (# 12913 of 12914)
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.

Trust has to be limited, care has to be taken, when judgements and decisions are being made.

Or judged.

Bush Tries to Deflect Criticism of Prewar Intelligence on Iraq By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Filed at 6:39 a.m. ET http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Bush-Iraq.html

When asked about his prewar statement on Iraq that the White House now says was flawed, the president said he was "absolutely confident" in his actions.

I believe President Bush when he says that he was "absolutely confident." - but it is possible to be absolutely confident and yet absolutely wrong.

President Bush shows how possible that is - by his actions and stances, much too often. It is dangerous. And, after enough repetitions - he ought to be ashamed of himself - and the American people ought to be ashamed of him, and for him.

As some NASA people should be ashamed.

More Messages Recent Messages (1 following message)

 Read Subscriptions  Cancel Subscriptions  Search  Post Message
 Your Preferences

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