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 - 09:31pm Oct 14, 2003 EST (# 15028 of 15067)
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.

Gisterme has worked hard on this board - http://www.mrshowalter.net/PostsBy_Gisterme.htm and Almarst has, too http://www.mrshowalter.net/PostsBy_Almarst.htm

Today gisterme asked what it was that I'd been trying to accomplish on the board - and what perhaps we'd collectively worked to accomplish on this board - and asked some other good questions, too.

14943-60 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.UsrvbnVpODi.2598752@.f28e622/16654

17 postings !

Because of other pressures, I did not respond today nearly as much as I'd hoped to. Other postings distracted. Though I'll reread and reconsider gisterme's postings.

A technical summary of discussions on Missile defense just after this board was restarted at the beginning of March 2002 is set out with links in 84 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.UsrvbnVpODi.2598752@.f28e622/99

The day before the board was restarted - there was summary discussion on issues that still seem fresh - including some very good questions and comments from manjumicha2001 - and while I'm mulling over responses to Gisterme's posts this morning - it seems sensible to post them - as summaries of the first 12,000 or so postings on this board.

Clear communication - Iran, Iraq, NK - and threats - what's reasonable? : http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md11000s/MD11916.HTM

Response to manj -and "two long sentences of summary": http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md11000s/MD11920.HTM

Responsibility to be clear and to expect clarity: http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md11000s/MD11926.HTM

Basic human needs - and key question from manj: http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md11000s/MD11928.HTM

"Idealism" or "realism" - and manj on pathos versus logic: http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md11000s/MD11931.HTM

Nukes are still terribly dangerous - and key question by Almarst: http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md11000s/md11932_11939.htm

Two long summary sentences I wrote at manjumicha's request:

"If the United States could, and would, explain its national interest -- distinct from the interests of its military-industrial complex, and explain how its interests fit in the interconnected world we live in -- and do it honestly, and in ways that other nations could check, it could satisfy every reasonable security need it has, without unreasonable or unacceptably unpopular uses of force.

"The rest of the world, collectively, and in detail, would try hard to accomodate US needs, if it understood them, and could reasonably believe and respect them. For the separate, and distinctly different cases of Iran, Iraq, and North Korea, there would be different sentences - - but the two long sentences above seem to me to be most important.

- -

Here is almarst-2001 - 10:55pm Feb 28, 2002 EST (#11939 of 11939)

The just released Wite House tapes releaved that Nixon was ready to order the nuclear strikes against Vietnam, being stopped by Kissinger.

Can any nation in the World afford placing its fate in the hands of a couple of the "wise man" in Washington? That remains a question that has to be considered seriously. Perhaps now more than ever.

It seems to me that some of gisterme's postings today in 14943-60 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.UsrvbnVpODi.2598752@.f28e622/16654 - - and some of cantabb's and jorian's postings, as well, look especially interesting in light of postings set out just before and after March 1, 2002.

Perhaps we're at a time where we need to consider a paradigm shift http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7726f/360

Paradigm references: 116 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.UsrvbnVpODi.2598752@.f28e622/137 .

15018-20 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.UsrvbnVpODi.2598752@.f28e622/16729

rshow55 - 09:35pm Oct 14, 2003 EST (# 15029 of 15067)
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.

What would "the average reader of the New York Times" want to happen here?

It seems to me that if responsible people gave thought to that - some good things might happen.

Questions about what fairness is are important. And issues of power - including the power of the press - need considering.

When is there an obligation to check facts to closure?

Ever? or Never?

If the answer is "never" - The New York Times has some problems in keeping implicit but important promises to its customers - and to a society that depends on it for credible information.

(38 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense