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 (4450 previous messages)

rshow55 - 02:53pm Sep 20, 2002 EST (# 4451 of 4456) 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.

Full Text: Bush's National Security Strategy ....The document, entitled "The National Security Strategy of the United States," will soon be transmitted to Congress as a declaration of the Administration's policy. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/20/politics/20STEXT_FULL.html

This is a very well written, very interesting document.

As written, it is consistent with some key stability conditions

. Berle's Laws of Power

. Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs

. The Golden Rule

4251 rshow55 9/10/02 7:16am

I've disagreed with the Bush administration from time to time, but I agree with a lot, though not everything in http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/20/politics/20STEXT_FULL.html

It provides a policy framework - and says things that make a difference. It is not a good reason to trust the administration, however well intentioned it may often be, without careful, detailed checking.

As noted in lchic "Corporate Scandals and Investor Confidence (A Moderated Forum)" 1/27/02 11:58pm . . . words and deeds can, and often are, quite inconsistent.

Enron Report 2000 http://www.enron.com/corp/investors/annuals/2000/

Enron - values http://www.enron.com/corp/investors/annuals/2000/ourvalues.html

. Integrity: "We work with customers and prospects openly, honestly and sincerely. When we say we will do something, we will do it; when we say we cannot or will not do something, then we won’t do it."

. Excellence: "We are satisfied with nothing less than the very best in everything we do..."

The reality, in Enron's case, fell a good way short of the words.

Checking matters.

At the same time, it seems to me that the "The National Security Strategy of the United States" is an impressive setting out of principles - worthy of a great deal of respect. There's a certain amount of corruption and inconsistency in any political process, but it matters what people say - and how what they say fits with what they do. Sometimes, as in the case of Enron and many other organizations, the fit is a very poor one.

I'm spending a good deal of time and thought on the document. It says some things about missile defense , and other things, that ought to be checked.

lchic - 04:49pm Sep 20, 2002 EST (# 4452 of 4456)

Read this http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/20/politics/20STEXT_FULL.html

- a series of speeches - each a media sound bite opportunity

Wasn't sure about this one

  • * strengthening the authority of the Director ** of Central Intelligence to lead the development and actions of the Nation's foreign intelligence capabilities

    Pity the US doesn't have a regular Foreign Office that's accountable to Parliament!

    Info re NUKES see pages 6 and 11

    lchic - 05:08pm Sep 20, 2002 EST (# 4453 of 4456)

    The speech might have run:

    1 - USA appologies to world for all the stuff-ups caused since WWI when it started tweaking the world. (That would have got WORLD attention)

    2 - The world has common problems relating to

    - economic development - need to help build viable economies all nations - need to put fundamentals of literacy in place - provision of Public-Health at least cost - Health Education - preventative health

    - Global trade is important - Need to 'protect' industries that are reshaping

    - Jobs are important everywhere - Need for combined Government/Commercial funding

    - International thinking and philosopy should be based on reality not myths .... sound economies and opportunites for education and work for all citizens would best shape political logics and delimit terror.

    - Rather than complain about 'everybody else' having weapons of Mass destruction and Terror ... there was an opportunity here for leadership in taking them down -- didn't happen.

    Glossary requirement: what does USA mean by 'great power', 'friend', compete etc

    The Empire of the MIND wasn't mentioned - human potentials, achievements .... Global Business ... doesn't lay within 'land borders'.

    ~~~~~~

    Interesting that a Nation that's big on freedom, itself 'sits like a monkey on the backs of it's own'; removes the parents and partners of existing citizens - killing the economic family unit - denying love; literally kills and jails so many of it's own - minority cultures overly represented.

    More Messages Recent Messages (3 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