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.

rshow55 - 08:50am Aug 26, 2003 EST (# 13405 of 13417)
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.

They could sample it. What makes it bad for some purposes makes it good for others.

And someone might care enough to do so - if some key issues needed to be proved -if "connection of the dots" on a basis involving a lot of statistics was useful.

If the question "who is gisterme ?" were answered specifically - whatever the answer is - these posts might acquire "new meaning" and "new interest."

And if the question "who is gisterme ?" is to be answered - the collection - the sort - would make it possible to find some things out.

I think gisterme is more than one person - at least sometimes - myself - but think that the President of the United States either is on, or is in close contact with, the individual-group that posts as gisterme.

If that's right - the list would be worth some attention to some people.

Ever looked at pretrail discovery in a civil case? It is voluminous. But from the long - often - the short condenses.

The long and the short of it is that you need both long and short.

Is this thread voluminous? Sure is. But pithy in spots, too.

For instance, fredmoore's posts are often entertaining - and intersting in other ways. For instance, the fredmoore posts that also use the word "ferrarri" are especially interesting - because they relate to "impossible things" that fredmoore's associates feel they can't do. Things worth thinking about.

Some jorian319 posts are interesting, as well.

almarst2002 - 09:38am Aug 26, 2003 EST (# 13406 of 13417)

"vital national interests"

VS. Ego, Greed and Fear of its leaders with an Election Cycle time span.

VS. Vital interests of the nation's Majority.

VS. Vital intersts of Majority of the World's population.

Vs. God's Designed Law of Unintentional Consequences.

jorian319 - 10:11am Aug 26, 2003 EST (# 13407 of 13417)

Hmmm... Ego and Vital interests get the full caps "VS.", but God only gets "Vs."

I guess that's a good thing?

rshow55 - 10:37am Aug 26, 2003 EST (# 13408 of 13417)
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.

jorian319 . I suspect you're a hypocrite. God matters a lot to me - both when I'm believing in him - and when I'm doubting God. I think God expects people to do both. Most clergymen have plenty of doubts - the one's I respect, anyway.

We've got some basic problems with priorities - and an essential set of problems involves loyalty - which has to be subject to some thought - and care - if we are to be loyal in the ways that matter. ( For example, I try to be honest to God. )

Stickin' The Case for Loyalty by James Carville , Simon and Schuster, 2000 , has a chapter, In Theory that includes these passages:

P. 77: "Even if loyalty is difficult to define, we can make the case for it. We go back again to our markers where the presumption is loyalty - the presumption is that our family is right, our friends are right, our country is right, our God is right. I would say that to most people its instinctual. This prism that they see things through is basic and clear. The burden of proof against this is on the enemy - which doesn't mean that they can't attain the burden of proof. But if you've gotten out there and acted pretty much on your instinct, you will have established your position. And I would also say that usually we go with the person - not the theory or the high-flown moral concept, but the person.

P. 82: "What are we left with. Complicated moral and ethical questions that can't, for most people, be easily reduced to simple answers. If you have to pin me down to ask me what to be loyal to, stick with your best instinct. The further I get into the question of loyalty, the more I am reminded of recess in seventh grade at S. Joseph's parochial school in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. As in most schoolyards, there's be fights and rumbles between various groups of kids. When this was going on, you'd look out for your friends and they'd look after you. For me, this is the essence of loyalty. Its recess in seventh grade and there's a pile-up and Stanley Civello is at the bottom of the pile. Its instinct and your instince is to go in there and try to help him.

"If you have to think about it, it may already be too late."

But sometimes, when the stakes are higher than they are in a playground fight - you have to think about what is going on. Sometimes in the course of a playgroud fight (or before or after) it helps to think competently about what is going on. Quickly. Effectively. Before it is too late.

And if you don't KNOW what to do - things can go very badly.

(9 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense