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 (4686 previous messages)

rshow55 - 10:51am Sep 30, 2002 EST (# 4687 of 4699) 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.

Issues of humanity are practical concerns if we are to make peace stable. We're human beings
4364-4367 rshow55 9/18/02 7:42am

Issues of consistency are vital, too.

Especially when inconsistencies have big costs, and big risks,
to real flesh and blood human beings.

4369-70 rshow55 9/18/02 11:11am :

Enough is going badly enough - things are out of balance enough --
there's enough crazy behavior - that people ought to seriously consider getting
some key facts established - so that we'd know enough -
about the past, and about ourselves - so that stable, peaceful relations might
have a decent chance.

If world leaders want some things clarified - they need to ask.

4420 rshow55 9/19/02 2:05pm :

"Here's a quote from a mystery story writer, Dashiell Hammet in
The Thin Man , 1933. Hammet's speaking of a sexy,
interesting, treacherous character named "Mimi".
He's asked by a police detective what to make of what she says:

" The chief thing," I advised him, "is not to let
her wear you out. When you catch her in a lie,
she admits it and gives you another lie to take
its place, and when you catch he in that one,
admits it, and gives you still another, and so on.
Most people . . . get discouraged after you've caught them
in the third or fourth straight lie and fall back on the
truth or silence, but not Mimi. She keeps trying, and you've got to be careful or you'll
find yourself believing her, not because she seems to be
telling the truth, but simply because you're tired of disbelieving her. "

The United States, in its diplomatic and military fuctions,
can be too much like that. So, certainly, can other countries.

What if truth broke out?

Peace might break out, too.

"The National Security Strategy of the United States," http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/20/politics/20STEXT_FULL.html is beautiful in some ways
- - ugly in some others.

Is all the ugliness and evasion really necessary?

We need to find end games that are stable, and have good
end points. From where we are, that ought not to be so hard.

Gisterme has made some sensible points on this thread.

Almarst has, as well.

For more than a year, nobody disputed the facts in this, which has, alas, been removed from the web:

THREATS TO USE NUCLEAR WEAPONS: The Sixteen Known Nuclear Crises
of the Cold War, 1946-1985 by David R. Morgan http://scienceforpeace.sa.utoronto.ca/WorkingGroupsPage/NucWeaponsPage/Documents/ThreatsNucWea.html
( I have a copy, and will email to anyone who asks.)

Gisterme looked at it carefully - and stopped making
certain claims, once (s)he saw it.

The United States has been actively threatening first use of nuclear weapons for decades
- - and when I had an interview with "becq" on Sep 25, 2000
it was clear that the policy was still active then.

It continues to be.

Do the crimes of Saddam look so much worse?
Perhaps they do to Americans - but the judgement wouldn't be
universally shared around the world.

Bill Casey knew that America had made choices to kill
millions of innocent people - and carried them out.

rshow55 - 10:56am Sep 30, 2002 EST (# 4688 of 4699) 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.

We should do better - and expect better - today.

If we ask for better - and we should -- people should be able to
ask for better from us , as well.

If the United States acknowledged the things that it has done as a nation
- the agony and destruction that it has caused - and made sure American citizens
knew the most important of these things - - - we could have a safer world.

There are things that ought to be prohibited.

Including some things we've done ourselves.

And routinely threated to do ourselves - - for decades.

- - -

If we did things we could do - -
we'd be much safer, and wouldn't need to cling to hopeless dreams like "missile defense."

More Messages Recent Messages (11 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