[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 (2229 previous messages)

lchic - 11:02am May 15, 2002 EST (#2230 of 2251)

GU RU PU,2763,715750,00.html

lchic - 11:06am May 15, 2002 EST (#2231 of 2251)


rshow55 - 12:33pm May 15, 2002 EST (#2232 of 2251) Delete Message

Arafat, Under Pressure, Urges Wide Changes in Government by JAMES BENNET with TERENCE NEILAN

A step toward better things. Can it bear fruit? That depends on dealing with many problems, and many "chain breakers."

With "the best will in the world" the jobs involved would be terribly hard.

But we're dealing with the situation as it is, and "the best will in the world" is not to be expected. But the situation could be handled better than it probably will be, if the complexities involved were dealt with, clearly,

MD229 rshow55 5/15/02 9:34am MD2230 rshow55 5/15/02 9:36am

Lchic and I did a 2 hour, 70 post session on negotiation in the middle east that I think summarizes a good deal about new opportunities in conflict resolution made possible by the internet, and prototyped to some degree here. Could the Palestinians use these tools, and in doing so get better solutions for themselves, and more workable and honorable arrangements with the Israelis and the rest of the world? I think the answer is yes - and think that the situtation is so complex that some sort of technical means to get things to closure is going to have to be adopted.

MD1613 rshow55 4/21/02 7:44pm includes this . . "These articles from the NYT address questions of trust. We need to establish workable, practical patterns of trust. Often, that means that key questions of fact have to be checkable. In the real world, where people who distrust each other, and dislike each other, often for good reasons, often have to find workable ways to live together. Often, key matters of fact have to be checked to closure. . . .

We've got more to learn. Some key points concern context (there has to be enough for what people need to do) and cooperation and communication along a trust-distrust continuum.

I've been concerned about building stable peace, and cooperation, between groups that naturally and properly distrust each other, that are afraid of each other, and are very different. Distrust needs to be accomodated and acknowledged in a humanly workable way. To simply say "we don't deal with, or talk to, those we distrust" classifies hope out of existence.

People can trust facts of mutual interest, and accomodate each other in ways complicated enough for safety and productive interaction, if the key facts can be checked.

The following postings, which use the example of missile defense, talk about how real checking can be done . . .

More Messages Recent Messages (19 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Email to Sysop  Your Preferences

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

Home | Site Index | Site Search | Forums | Archives | Shopping

News | Business | International | National | New York Region | NYT Front Page | Obituaries | Politics | Quick News | Sports | Science | Technology/Internet | Weather
Editorial | Op-Ed

Features | Arts | Automobiles | Books | Cartoons | Crossword | Games | Job Market | Living | Magazine | Real Estate | Travel | Week in Review

Help/Feedback | Classifieds | Services | New York Today

Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company