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 - 07:13pm Sep 27, 2002 EST (# 4599 of 4617)
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.

That's nonsense - a big lie. The Bush administration, far too often, stands against liberty.

And the Iraqis, ugly as Saddam is, are a relatively minor threat to America.

And Americans are sometimes pretty ugly, too.

rshow55 - 07:17pm Sep 27, 2002 EST (# 4600 of 4617)
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.

This is a dangerous but hopeful time. When markets fall as much as they fell today, I want to move slowly. Still, it was important when Richard Gephardt wrote this:

Defend the Country, Not the Party http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/27/opinion/27GEPH.html

President Bush has decided to play politics with the safety and security of the American people.

It was useful when the NYT looked at risks in proportion.

The Greater Nuclear Danger http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/27/opinion/27FRI1.html

The top priority in the fight against nuclear terrorism must be to safeguard all fissile materials that would make such terrorism possible.

It is important that nation states are asking questions, and asking for facts.

I'm not without biases:
4183 rshow55 9/4/02 7:00pm . . . 4184 rshow55 9/4/02 7:02pm

If Bill Casey were looking down, I think he'd be very proud of me. Though not of his old agency. The key things that Eisenhower warned against in his Farewell Address http://www.geocities.com/~newgeneration/ikefw.htm have happened - - and we need to fix them.

Republicans should take the lead. That wouldn't be hard. Some prominant Wisconsin republicans, who were old friends and AEA investors, and who have met George Bush and some of his senior officers, know me well. With one call from the White House, a lot could be sorted out. . . . . . I'd do my very best if that happened. And I'll do the best I can, under the circumstances, if it doesn't.

MD4461 rshow55 9/21/02 10:35am

What if real leaders of real nation states asked to get some key matters of fact clarified - - to levels that would work, widely, before juries. A lot would sort out, for moderate cost, and fairly quickly.

The costs of getting some key questions clear are tiny compared to the stakes.

Pardon me for moving slowly.

In addition to aggressiveness, there are high ideals in "The National Security Strategy of the United States," http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/20/politics/20STEXT_FULL.html

One can make clear enough analogies between that document and Nazi documents in some ways but not in others.

Things are unstable, dangerous, and ugly in compelling ways. Some of the most basic aspects of international law have been rejected by the Bush administration, and are being renegotiated now.

4468 rshow55 9/21/02 5:06pm The whole world has to be careful about this necesarily complicated and multilateral deal.

People are being careful. Not everything is going badly.

Humane feelings are important. Rationality is important, too. If people, all over the world, with substantial stakes in world markets asked for answers that made sense in terms of their needs - - and rejected nonsense and fraud - - we'd be in the middle of a very hopeful time.

Could it be that the Bush administration is as crazy an unbalanced as it looks? I was impressed by

In Broad Daylight By PAUL KRUGMAN http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/27/opinion/27KRUG.html which includes this:

" only in the last few weeks, with a series of damning reports and judgments, has conventional wisdom grudgingly accepted the obvious."

Why don't we ask that facts be determined where the problems are obvious ? A lot might sort out. Pretty quickly.

Chain Breakers http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee79f4e/618

We're moving toward a situation where ideas that didn't propogate before, can.

And should.

(17 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense