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 (15315 previous messages)

rshow55 - 06:35am Oct 21, 2003 EST (# 15316 of 15318)
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.

Yesterday afternoon, I said this 15292 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.lrCFbCYwQ59.3812404@.f28e622/17005

"If people are to use this board - and if I'm to be able to function - what happened on this board has to be explained concisely in the ways that matter for action.

"That doesn't necessarily conflict with any valid interest of the newspaper.

"We don't have to be in a "zero sum" or "negative sum" game here. We could arrange a positive sum game.

In 1503 Cantab chose to pick a fight about a phrase I used.

"If YOU are “to be able to function” ? More insinuations.

I need accomodations that permit me to function -and know a lot about what my needs are. If that sort of thing is denied in a negotiation - nothing can possibly close in anything but a fight - or something like rape.

You can always pick a fight. For any stable accomodation about anything at all complicated - people have - within limits - and for particular purposes - to choose not to fight. And be prepared to accomodate the needs of the people involved.

Otherwise, explosive fights have to be expected. They are not "bad luck" - they are foreseeable. Masters of the short term solution - especially masters of the ultra-short sound bit solution may miss that - and doing so, they guarantee bad results for themselves and people who rely on them.

Yesterday's 15284 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.lrCFbCYwQ59.3812404@.f28e622/16997 includes this:

I'm working as hard and as carefully as I can, trying to produce a satisfactory response to some of Cantabb's earlier suggestions - in a proposal to the "top dog" at the NYT that he suggested I make. It seemed like a good suggestion when he made it, and seems, if anything, better now. When I think of the logical problems I'm having - just on my simple, low status, low priority problem of dealing with the NYT - I can see how the Bush administration can have its difficulties on the harder problems it faces.

All the same, I'm trying to do a proposal that would work as a model that the Bush administration - and other institutions and nations involved with the Korean problems - could actually learn from in ways that could be helpful. Whether I'll finish it in the next five hours, I don't know. Probably not. But it seems to me that the proposal is converging nicely, everything considered.

I didn't finish - and I'll be continuing. It is hard to do "under fire." I think the proposal will be good enough so that it will work as a model that the Bush administration - and other institutions and nations involved with the Korean problems - could actually learn from in ways that could be helpful. If they are actually willing to learn.

More Messages Recent Messages (2 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Your Preferences

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