New York Times Readers Opinions
The New York Times
Home
Job Market
Real Estate
Automobiles
News
International
National
Politics
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
New York Today
Crossword/Games
Cartoons
Magazine
Week in Review
Multimedia
College
Learning Network
Services
Archive
Classifieds
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 (4155 previous messages)

rshow55 - 07:27pm Sep 3, 2002 EST (# 4156 of 4171) Delete Message
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.

I think we've made progress since.

in 4017 mazza9 8/29/02 9:57pm Mazza uses the notion of a "fact" in an interesting Piagetian sense - and calls the proposition that "missile defense is not a boondoggle" a "fact" just like the fact that f = ma

But I thought 4140 wrcooper 9/2/02 8:37pm and 4150 wrcooper 9/3/02 8:57am were especially useful - in the larger context of this thread.

4146 rshowalt 9/3/02 7:41am contains this:

If "Cooper" wasn't "joshing" in wrcooper 9/2/02 8:37pm . . a chain of evidence leading right up to the Oval office - and the key players of the military industial complex -- is close at hand.

almarst2002 - 09:08pm Sep 3, 2002 EST (# 4157 of 4171)

wrcooper 9/2/02 8:17pm - "Give us in Washington a chance to do our work in peace...for peace."

I wonder how the MD program will advance the PEACE. Or, alternatively, how the PEACE is defined in Washington?

almarst2002 - 09:41pm Sep 3, 2002 EST (# 4158 of 4171)

From A Nation Chalenged forum that I can also sign:

tcncarter "A Nation Challenged" 9/3/02 9:30pm - "From War Rax Resistors.... " No country even remotely comes close to the U.S. in military power. Yet what was gained by spending 14 trillion dollars--$14,000,000,000,000--on the Pentagon (since W.W.II) if that meant millions of Americans went hungry, became homeless, died of curable diseases, remained illiterate, spent their lives as slaves to boring jobs? Relying on secrecy, violence, and militarism has other devasting consequences:

A government that solves problems with guns can expect its citizens will also.

The largest military in history cannot protect Americans from terrorism. Such acts are likely to continue as long as the U.S. intervenes--militarily and economically--in other countries.

In the name of "national security" governments lie to citizens about the need for more weapons, the every day dangers encountered by soldiers and military workers, casualties, battles won or lost, goals achieved, and so forth.

Ultimately, the military exists to protect those with power, influence, and money here and abroad. It's those without who are made to suffer. Our security depends more on a population that is healthy, confident, and hopeful about the future than it does on an enormous, saber-rattling military. By rejecting a foreign policy built on fear and intimidation, and instead using the military budget to rebuild America and improve the quality of our lives as well as those in developing countries, we would earn the respect of the world thus improving our security dramatically." 1998 War Tax resistors

lchic - 02:30am Sep 4, 2002 EST (# 4159 of 4171)

There's a little-league game on in JoBurg right now ..... but where's Bushy?!

lchic - 02:55am Sep 4, 2002 EST (# 4160 of 4171)

An Aussie analyst doing a 'take' on Iraq said that the US wanting a regime change was a little 'too' much for Iraq - that would actually want the same - but not to be stood over.

Strategist said that the Bush Admin was 'divided' Powell/Cheney was probably just strategy so that those in the ME 'didn't know if they were coming or going'.
Played too hard - he thought real confusion with BAD outcomes might result ... as Iraq and neighbours panicked! Half the ME oil mob are over in Aus holidaying and having a cooler-time of it.

North Koreans are getting desperate not to go back to NK.

Putin is busy doing deals with Korea - and is reported to be pro NK's people working through into Eastern Russia. He's busy doing deals here there and 'everywhere' ... pretty busy out and about in the world.

lchic - 02:59am Sep 4, 2002 EST (# 4161 of 4171)

Tony of Number Ten (and Eleven) says
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,785651,00.html

More Messages Recent Messages (10 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Your Preferences

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





Home | Back to Readers' Opinions Back to Top


Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company | Privacy Policy | Contact Us