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.

rshow55 - 07:27pm Sep 20, 2002 EST (# 4455 of 4456)
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.

Disputable - properly disputed -- but http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/20/politics/20STEXT_FULL.html seems to me to be an excellent, first-rate piece in significant ways.

465 lchic 3/13/02 6:39pm . . quotes almarst

Last year Alex said : "There must be a major discussion today about the desired geopolitical place and role of US, the moral and ideological guidance and limits, it will be absolutly never cross. May be even constutionalised?

"The National Security Strategy of the United States" http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/20/politics/20STEXT_FULL.html is a clear , well written piece, written by Rice, widely discussed, read and carefully thought about by G.W.Bush - and it is a clear point of departure for that discussion.

I feel it should be respected as such.

I think that having things clear is useful for everybody who has to care about US policy. The paper is plainly a political document. But it says some rather clear things, that can be disputed, as to fact and context.

If http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/20/politics/20STEXT_FULL.html were carefully considered - clearly placed in a context of fact -- clearly connected to ideas and interpretations that the whole world could understand (not necessarily like) that would, I think, do great good.

Pardon me for moving slowly - but it seems to me that http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/20/politics/20STEXT_FULL.html is worth reading, rather than dismissing. It isn't written by a "know-nothing" - - and it makes a serious effort to make clear statements to responsible people all over the world.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/20/politics/20STEXT_FULL.html passes some of the tests I'd apply ( as some Enron documents would, as well. ) I think it is a very useful piece - not to be taken as gospel - but to be carefully considered, for what it fits -- how it is beautiful, and how it is ugly . I think the world view it represents might be subject to some modification and improvement, in some spots.

The piece is consistent with a great deal -- including the possibility that some huge mistakes may be being made, and that enormous wastes of money and chances are occurring - possibly by mistake, and possibly with much corruption.

Still, I think even a Stanford professor, or Professor Wendy Graham, might give the piece high marks on a number of counts. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/20/politics/20STEXT_FULL.html is clear, within reasonable limits for a document of this kind. That's a substantial step forward - if things are checked, and not merely deferred to.

If nation states wanted to get some key things checked (and I think they ought to) -- it seems to me that http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/20/politics/20STEXT_FULL.html would be a fine piece to refer to.

rshow55 - 08:08pm Sep 20, 2002 EST (# 4456 of 4456)
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.

Sometimes things do move toward a sort of closure - at least in limited areas.

Bush Supports an Independent 9/11 Probe By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Attacks-Intelligence.html

Fine work by the NYT, including a special WEEK IN REVIEW section, UNSEEN: A SPECIAL SECTION ON INTELLIGENCE , may have played a part in getting this motion toward closure - and informing decisions. 4252 rshow55 9/10/02 8:26am

More closures might be possible if questions of "who can pay" were better asked and better answered.
4253 rshow55 9/10/02 8:35am ... 4254 rshow55 9/10/02 8:43am

There are a lot of key questions that can be asked of subject matter in "The National Security Strategy of the United States" http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/20/politics/20STEXT_FULL.html that might merit special treatment.

Some of them involve missile defense - and other issues involving a great deal of money -- and a lot else.

The costs of getting some key questions far clearer than they are now - with islands of fact that almost everybody would agree on - - are tiny compared to the human stakes (and military expenditures) involved with these issues.

There are major stakeholders - all over the world, who might contribute to this effort, if people and institutions of high status asked them to.

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense