[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 (2404 previous messages)

lchic - 01:00pm May 28, 2002 EST (#2405 of 2432)

Incentive Reward Systems Greed-EnronStyle-happenings

    A nobel prize winner may provide a universally adopted innovation/solution that improves the quality of life. In return s/he will get a couple of $million.
    By contrast the 'American-disease' sweeping the board rooms of the company world, so say those examining German Telecom, gives outrageously large pay-outs to executives.
    German investigators are wanting to innoculate their commercial world against this 'American-disease' ....
?! time to develop world monetary-return standards for 'Office Holders'?

Interesting interview on China (heard)
said there are no real measurements there relating to
the true value of company stocks ....
lots of lies ...

?! may one day reflect in 'Market statistics'?

Underlines a point - regarding - Conflict of Interest wrt


which gains military technology orders from TheAdministration, where an

Office Holder

is the


of the USA President.

mazza9 - 01:11pm May 28, 2002 EST (#2406 of 2432)
Louis Mazza


..and, of course lchic will be the mediator who will dictate. After all lchic's penchant is for dictatorship!

By the way, wasn't it just marvelous that your PLO buddies were able to kill an Israeli Grandma and her 18 month old grandchild? As a noted babykiller you should advise your friends to position themselves so that more babies can die! {SARCASM ALERT!}

Why don't you mind your own business?


lchic - 01:36pm May 28, 2002 EST (#2407 of 2432)

'mind own business' says mAzzA

who supports unilateralism

that is the USA 'knowing' what's best for the world

USA demanding the world adhere to democracy

that is 'people' having a voice


Pakistan : Pakistan, three years in power are enough to tarnish the cleanest and most efficient government in the public view. The scale and magnitude of the problems we face are such that no amount of rhetoric and wishing will even begin to address them.

Suggesting that the average democratic citizen there would wish their government to improve their lot - (not fire NUKES!)

rshow55 - 03:19pm May 28, 2002 EST (#2408 of 2432) Delete Message

lchic 5/27/02 8:28pm refers to an article that predates Erica Goode's piece "Finding Answers in Secret Plots" by more than a year. So I was (at least partly) wrong in MD2346 rshow55 5/22/02 12:40pm

The phrase “connect the dots” was well set out in

But it seems to me that the points made about language (and the advantages of openness) in MD2346-2347 are still worth making.

Did Goode's piece change the incidence of the usage "connect the dots" -- which might have been a fizzle before? Just another guess -- and perhaps a wrong one, too. But checkable - and related to a lot of questions about how language, and human thought, actually works.

I’ve been away, socializing. But I’ve been pleased with the way a lot of things have gone on President Bush’s trip. And some beautiful pieces in the NYT. It seems high time to take steps (at all kinds of levels) to end the Cold War, and the decade of indecision after it – and steps in that direction have been taken.

It seems high time to consider both understanding, and some forgiving.

On the “American disease” – (human tendency) for deception – it would still make sense to CHECK about many things pertaining to “missile defense”

Simple questions – in detailed contexts – are :

Can it see the target?

Can it hit the target?

Can it hurt the target?

Detailed answers to these questions might be embarrassing, but liberating, too. To "sweep away the vestiges of the cold war" we need to see some awkward situations clearly -- and fix them.

Relationships between the United States and the rest of the world are focusing - and it seems to me that some of the readjustments look reasonable, humane, and good - as far as they go -for all the bad that remains.

rshow55 - 03:32pm May 28, 2002 EST (#2409 of 2432) Delete Message

NATO Embraces the Russians, but as Non-Voting Partners By DAVID E. SANGER

No vote for Russia. But if lines of communication between Russia and many or most of the NATO nations are strong enough, at enough levels, formal and informal - - a step toward safety and efficiency for all concerned. And a mechanism whereby essentially all aspects of missile defense can be discussed.

rshow55 - 04:51pm May 28, 2002 EST (#2410 of 2432) Delete Message

Cold War Buried, but NATO Faces Uncertain Future By REUTERS

"The new partnership . . . . underlined NATO'S emerging role as a political force for stability far beyond its own borders."

. . . limited, but in a framework of international communications and links that will tend to reinforce international law, make questions harder to evade, and limit American unilateralism and "spin control."

More Messages Recent Messages (22 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