[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 (2449 previous messages)

rshow55 - 03:23pm Jun 3, 2002 EST (#2450 of 2456) Delete Message

MD2440 rshow55 6/2/02 4:57pm . . . steps toward progress. Perhaps a useful contact.

Why not fix the global warming problem?

(Not just cope with it, or slow down the problem - but fix it.)

Why not fix the world's basic long term energy shortage?

Why not find and then achieve optimal solutions for big, basically simple problems that can be clearly defined, in terms of clear physical laws, and clear engineering relationships?

Why not get analysis good enough so we don't get "blindsided" when we should be "collecting the dots" and "connecting the dots" -- so that we can avoid disasters, avoid investing in programs (including some in "missile defense") that can't work?

Why not find programs that can work - or are excellent gambles, with good, known, advantageous chances of working?

Why not?

The reasons why not are fairly simple, and similar, for many questions of this kind.

And the barriers to progress are fixable. But the fix would require some changes, sometimes, about some things. AEA was an effort to find a way to adress those changes MD2116 rshow55 5/9/02 9:34am ... and I'm hoping to get, in majumicha2001's phrase "unshackled" so that what was learned in the AEA program can be put to use. And so that I can have enough title to what I've done so that I'll be able to function.

Took useful steps today, and the ball, just now, is in my court.

lchic - 04:37pm Jun 3, 2002 EST (#2451 of 2456)

Canada : An angry Mr Chretien has chosen to blame his rivals for his problems,7792,727041,00.html

lchic - 04:44pm Jun 3, 2002 EST (#2452 of 2456)

Indian SubContinent:
Russia and China stepped up efforts to engineer a face-to-face meeting between India's prime minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, and Pakistan's military ruler, General Pervez Musharraf.,2763,726970,00.html

lchic - 05:03pm Jun 3, 2002 EST (#2453 of 2456)

UK: legalFees
In an interview with The Independent, Lord Phillips, one of the top four judges in the country, said the high fees were driving up insurance premiums as it was insurance companies that were footing the legal bills. The difficulty is that it is the litigant who has to bear the cost. Litigants of course include, and very largely consist of, insurers who fund the liabilities. The costs of civil litigation in this country are very large and that is partly attributable to the fact lawyers are very expensive."


Since Sept11 there's been a crisis in INSURANCE here in Australia (there were also a few INScompanies in trouble). The Government (State by State) is having to consider re-establishing an insurance mechanism. Many community and tourist operations have been asked to pay exhorbitant insurance - which they can't meet. Consideration is being given to paying claims from court via lifelong installments & to legislate to bring them down $$$ dollarwise.

A solution that hasn't yet been considered is to factor in 'risk' as an ongoing lifeskill academicUnit - if people are more aware of risk they might reign-in their activities, or, might approach them procedurally with planning.


Raises the point that if 'risk' and personal safety were put to the fore .... then

???? what would the international 'gut reaction' to the nuclear debarcle be - in line with national gut feelings and rejection of

lchic - 05:26pm Jun 3, 2002 EST (#2454 of 2456)

Bush said he reserved the right to take pre-emptive military action against any ... .... Invading Iraq is a long-cherished ambition of Bush administration hawks

rshow55 - 05:31pm Jun 3, 2002 EST (#2455 of 2456) Delete Message

If people had their "guts" at all well connected to the reality of what nukes do - and how useless they are for any reasonable military purpose -- we'd find ways to get rid of them.

Lies are dangerous. There are many dangerous fictions in the world -- not all in Islamic nations. We need to be honest, and checkable, ourselves. We have reason to want to check about the rationality of our military arrangements.

Is nuclear prohibition impossible? So flawed that it isn't worth doing? It isn't that easy to make a nuke - a good many controls are now in place, and working -- though we can do better.

Nuclear Nightmares By BILL KELLER

We can do better accounting - about matters of business, and matters of life and death, as well. Putting the matter gently, there's room for improvement - and enough that's senseless that we'll all be safer if military policy is watched.

The Fighting Next Time By BILL KELLER

MD329 rshow55 3/10/02 3:03pm ... MD330 rshow55 3/10/02 3:21pm

And there is watching, and rebalancing, going on.

A Beautiful Friendship by BILL KELLER

MD2276 rshow55 5/18/02 12:43pm ... MD2278 rshow55 5/18/02 1:18pm

More Messages Recent Messages (1 following message)

 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