New York Times Readers Opinions
The New York Times
Job Market
Real Estate
New York Region
NYT Front Page
Readers' Opinions

Dining & Wine
Home & Garden
Fashion & Style
New York Today
Week in Review
Learning Network
Book a Trip
Theater Tickets
Premium Products
NYT Store
NYT Mobile
E-Cards & More
About NYTDigital
Jobs at NYTDigital
Online Media Kit
Our Advertisers
Your Profile
E-Mail Preferences
News Tracker
Premium Account
Site Help
Privacy Policy
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 (5003 previous messages)

rshow55 - 12:46pm Oct 18, 2002 EST (# 5004 of 5007) 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.

Surely Russians, or Europeans, or Asians can identify with this:

" The young are naturally romantic, and given to moral absolutes that necessarily make the real world of compromise, half-measures, and self-seeking appear corrupt."

...Chapter 1 .... Robert H. Bork, SLOUCHING TOWARDS GOMORRAH: Modern Liberalism and American Decline

But all decent human beings are "romantic" to some extent, and even the "indecent" are "romantic" sometimes.

People are right to distrust the United States - - and North Korea - - and Iraq - - - and all other countries in the world. That means that nations, like people, have to negotiate, and make arrangements in a world where people live along a continuum of trust and distrust.

MD2503 includes this:

"Almarst, I think your postings, currently and since March 2001, have been extremely constructive - - they've certainly taught me a great deal. And you never raise points that aren't "dots" that are worth connecting.

Was this too optimistic?

"Still, it seems to me that many of your concerns are being adressed (or at least, seriously considered) - by responsible people in the US, and internationally - and that some things in the future may be better than in the past. Better in part because of work and accomodations being made by people that you have reason to dislike. Better, that is, if everybody involved checks on each other, in reasonable ways, so that we're not too trusting where trust is negligence.

Almarst raised questions repeated in MD183-186 rshow55 3/3/02 10:43pm over many months past . . and I think they are distinguished questions.

MD182 includes two long sentences:

. If the United States could, and would, explain its national interest -- distinct from the interests of its military-industrial complex, and explain how its interests fit in the interconnected world we live in -- and do it honestly, and in ways that other nations could check, it could satisfy every reasonable security need it has, without unreasonable or unacceptably unpopular uses of force.

. The rest of the world, collectively, and in detail, would try hard to accomodate US needs, if it understood them, and could reasonably believe and respect them.

It seems to me that much of the world is trying - and that some progress is being made.

France and Russia Considering U.S. Offer on Iraq By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

The amount of discussion is heartening.

"On Wednesday and Thursday, the council held a public debate on the Iraq crisis for the first time this year.

" More than 60 countries spoke during the debate . . .

The National Security Strategy of the United States contains this on p. 2:

Today, the international community has the best chance since the rise of the nation-state in the seventeenth century to build a world where great powers compete in peace instead of continually prepare for war.

You dont have to agree with the Bush administation on all things to think thats true. Im hopeful. Many people and nations are coming to acknowledge something obvious - that many people have emphasized, and that Ive sometimes emphasized. For peace and stability - it is not trust that is safe and stable. It is a reasonable distrust - - combined with checking - - and an acknowledgement of the humanity of everybody concerned.

rshow55 - 12:48pm Oct 18, 2002 EST (# 5005 of 5007) 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.

People are dangerous and ugly enough. We don't have to look for monsters. . . With people as dangerous as they are - - hard work to reduce the threat from weapons of mass destruction is important.

More Messages Recent Messages (2 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