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.

almarst2002 - 02:00pm Oct 2, 2002 EST (# 4703 of 4706)

Records reveal CDC sent germ strains to Iraq in 1980s - http://www.washtimes.com/national/20021001-8211716.htm

One could wonder, what this was done for? And wasn't it against the law of WMD non-proliferation, the US is officially ready to go to war for against any country in a world which does not declare its loyalty to the stars-and-stripes ?

lchic - 03:14pm Oct 2, 2002 EST (# 4704 of 4706)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Echo Chamber picks up 'The Sound of Bush' ... so often he's seemingly self-talking. Was Saddam US military marching band trained?

The vote in USA Parliament ... what happens if Bush doesn't follow intended procedures ... just goes wham!

Pity there isn't a world leader who has sufficient clout to talk to Saddam, encourage him to pick up his bank books, trinkets etc .... and move to the Old Timer's Elephants Graveyard in Lybia - take tea with Idi Amin, so to speak.

Showalter - appologies for interrupting your dialogue here :

rshow55 10/1/02 6:51pm
rshow55 10/1/02 6:52pm

rshow55 - 04:27pm Oct 2, 2002 EST (# 4705 of 4706)
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.

lchic 10/2/02 3:14pm . . . Diplomacy's going well enough in places that maybe some world leaders are doing pretty well.

almarst2002 10/2/02 2:00pm . . Things are dangerous and ugly enough - - and the past was ugly enough - - but it isn't something so simple as a "US . . ready to go to war against any country . . . which does not declare its loyalty to the stars-and-stripes."

This beautiful, profound (and award-winning) article says true things about human beings. And human beings can be wonderful.

Of Altruism, Heroism and Nature's Gifts in the Face of Terror By NATALIE ANGIER http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/18/health/psychology/18ALTR.html

But altruism has its limits.

And people can be terrible, too. The 20th century had plenty of examples. Here's another one:

A Woman's Work By PETER LANDESMAN http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/15/magazine/15RWANDA.html

Rwanda's minister for women's affairs at the time of the 1994 war is accused of an incomprehensible evil — inciting Hutus to rape thousands of female Tutsis.

If "simple rationality" and good will could have gotten rid of war by now - - and ended the Cold War cleanly by now - - it would have happened. We're "playing" a deadly serious, dangerous game - - and we have to find practical ways of changing the game.

What Nash's 'Beautiful Mind' Really Accomplished By DANIEL A. GRECH http://www.latimes.com/la-032202nash.story includes this:

"But price theory can't explain the abundant real-world examples of market inefficiency. Nash approached this problem by reformulating economics as a game.

Some "games" have been very rough - and have risked everything in the world. Yet they've gone on because they've "made sense" in the ways that have mattered for action - step by step. 4530-31 rshow55 9/25/02 4:06pm

We've struggled with questions like this:

Suppose people did want to take nukes down? How could it be done?

and

How can we get the risks and costs of war way down from where they are - in the real world - with people as they are?

We need practical ways of changing the game.

(1 following message)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense