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 (15932 previous messages)

jorian319 - 11:32am Oct 30, 2003 EST (# 15933 of 15933)

In some situations, there are problems that can only be confronted by a concerted effort to focus on the win-win aspect of proposed solutions. Solutions must solve, and the definition of "solve" must be agreed upon by those for whom the effort is important. Without such agreement, the solution will be unstable and likely not scalable to the application as required by constrictive circumstance. Unstable solutions are well known to blow up in people's faces from time to time, often at great cost to innocents to whom neither the problem nor its solution is important. Discussion of the relationship of those working on solutions to those tring to focus on defining the problem is itself problematic for the third party - the one injured by actions taken by people either involved in the process of definition or in pursuit of the win-win solution required for amenable resolution. This human dynamic is seen to be ubiquitous throughout every arena wherein conflict seeks an equilibrium instead of real resolution, which can be recognized by a good faith examination of the various aspects of thoughtfulness that reflects the genesis of the problem itself. For the past several centuries, since my intitial involvement with Descartes in the development of Principles of Philosophy, certain parties with whom I hade contracted verbally have failed to deliver on their parts of the underlying agreement. I am being held hostage in my own skull and am seeking resolution through a seance whereby I might get a face-to-face meeting with the perpetrator(s), one of whom I suspect to be part of the Bluestar clan, which I have long thought to have obsconded with the balance of the Descartes estate. There are principles at stake, as well as students and teachers, and this should be important for all readers of this forum to keep in mind as we pursue the greater good for Humankind, and, hopefully long overdue justice for the wrongs done me in the past.

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Your Preferences

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


To post a message, compose your text in the box below, then click on Post My Message (below) to send the message.

Message:



You cannot rewrite history, but you will have 30 minutes to make any changes or fixes after you post a message. Just click on the Edit button which follows your message after you post it.