New York Times on the Web Forums
Science
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.
(15678 previous messages)
rshow55
- 12:45pm Oct 26, 2003 EST (#
15679 of 15682) 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.
bluestar23 - I did call. Talked to a secretary who
was helpful - but said the big boss was in a meeting - and I
was grateful to get his e-mail adress.
The fact is, so much hinges on this thing for me that I've
got a lot of emotions involved. That's a problem when people
try to sort out anything that might involve mutual
threat. Even though implicit but large threats are built into
very many of the human interactions we live with and
handle well. And the fact is, mutual threats - or at
least a balance of plusses and minuses - is built into
any stable interaction that is more than rape.
Because of the way people behave when emotions are running
- irrationally - there are many more negative sum games than
they need to be, because these things aren't sorted out
better.
When emotions are high - people regress as logical
beings. Not only me. So it is a strain to sort things out that
look easier from a distance. And not only for me.
Emotions run high, and not only mine. That's a problem in
all sorts of situations. I've been sorting things out - with
small steps - as fast as I've known how to and dared - and I
know I haven't been wasting the important man's time -
since I have to assume that he's not posting on this board.
The word "condescending" was used by Cantabb - and
I'm sorry he feels that way about my responses - which are
intended to be clear and respectful.
The NYT has a problem - and the whole world has a problem
(as well as a huge advantage) because the NYT is now, and has
been for a while - the intellectual source that is the
most steadily infuential in the country. Nobody much
condescends to the the TIMES - but there are
awkwardnesses dealing with so much power.
My respect for the TIMES, and the people who make it run,
is enormous.
cantabb
- 12:48pm Oct 26, 2003 EST (#
15680 of 15682)
The fact that we had been armed to the teeth didn't prevent
9/11. Not only that, it did NOT come from the 'usual suspects'
we had been planning against.
Potential threats to the nation and their sources and
nature -- all have changed dramatically. Pieces have been
rearranged on the chess board, and we had to go back to the
drawing board.
We knew American interests and people outside the country
faced risks, but at least we were safe within. That was
shattered.
Some of the BROAD options we seem to have: Re-visiting the
cold war era (with different slate of foes and players) to
accommodate the 'new reality' [and still NOT feel 100% safe]
OR focusing on finding and resolving the sources of
conflicts that fuel such hostilities toward US and its
interest. Either way, we can not ignore our economy. We know
it already has had tremendous effect on our national psyche.
bluestar23
- 12:50pm Oct 26, 2003 EST (#
15681 of 15682)
"to get his e-mail adress."
Give it out to the rest of us, please..I too want to email
Sulzberger to tell him what a biased and unobjective rag he is
running...
(1 following message)
New York Times on the Web Forums
Science
Missile Defense
|