New York Times Forums
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 (13998 previous messages)

rshow55 - 07:12am Sep 26, 2003 EST (# 13999 of 14006)
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 really liked this piece this morning:

Dogged Engineer's Effort to Assess Shuttle Damage By JAMES GLANZ and JOHN SCHWARTZ http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/26/national/nationalspecial/26ENGI.html

12910-11 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.gSpEbbepI0C.1926605@.f28e622/14586 . . . http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.gSpEbbepI0C.1926605@.f28e622/14587

We're "wired up" so that, unless we learn some things - we'll continue to make lethal mistakes with monotonous regularity - and the world will remain much uglier than it would be if we could only learn how we go wrong - by "being nice" in the wrong place - when right answers are needed.

rshow55 - 07:16am Sep 26, 2003 EST (# 14000 of 14006)
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.

How many people actually know

. How to agree to disagree clearly, without fighting, comfortably, so that they can cooperate stably, safely, and productively.

Anybody?

Could there be technical and logical problems involved?

Sure looks that way to me.

When fights happen - I'm not a bit sure that people are all that clear, specifically, about why they are fighting.

lchic - 07:19am Sep 26, 2003 EST (# 14001 of 14006)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Some posters even 'bicker' here, on this board.

lchic - 07:32am Sep 26, 2003 EST (# 14002 of 14006)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Were an historical figure of yore

To emerge today

To check out culture (including MD culture)

To compare the 'Then' with the 'Now'

Would they be surprised by 'Advancement' or the lack of it ?

rshow55 - 07:49am Sep 26, 2003 EST (# 14003 of 14006)
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.

With good staffing - the most interesting answer would be both .

We've worked through some necessary conditions to prosperity and international cooperation.

We're still missing just a few.

Cantabb made a telling point in 13964

. Cantabb: "Peace making" reuires much more than wishful thinking.

And indeed it does ! But there are necessary conditions to stable peacemaking - and it they are not known - stable, humanly workable peacemaking is strictly impossible. Here are necessary conditions - and I'm not claiming they are new - but only that they are necessary conditions that people don't know - and don't want to see.

For stable end games - people and groups have to be workably clear on these key questions.

How do they disagree (agree) about logical structure ?

How do they disagree (agree) about facts ?

How do they disagree (agree) about questions of how much different things matter ?

How do they differ in their team identifications ?

Odds are good that if the patterns of agreement (or disagreement) are STABLE and KNOWN they can be decently accomodated.

Even a child should know the things above - and kids could be taught them. Adults need to know them, too.

Most people, including most leaders - do not know this - Nash didn't know this result. It is a result both Eisenhowers wanted desperately:

. Odds are good that if the patterns of agreement (or disagreement) are STABLE and KNOWN they can be decently accomodated.

Is the statement "diffuse" ? In the sense that logically incremental leadership is diffuse, it is. But it is necessary for people to learn this - if peace making is ever to be stable.

More Messages Recent Messages (3 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Your Preferences

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