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 (5202 previous messages)

rshow55 - 08:17pm Oct 24, 2002 EST (# 5203 of 5204) 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.

gisterme 10/24/02 7:43pm . . the search facility is back, and if you search commondata - - you'll find a very distinguished sequence of fine postings - that make points that can be checked.

We ought to be at a point where checking is justified - indeed, morally forcing - - - 5117-51119 rshow55 10/22/02 4:22pm

A symbol and synonym for justice involves balance - - - we have to worry about balance in the case of Iraq, and in other cases, too.

Is the United States really blameless for the agony and death in Iraq? How many people, in how many countries, agree with that? (It wouldn't be hard to check . )

International law, and patterns of international order, are being renegotiated . Either that, or they are being undermined.

The whole world has worry which is happening.

If some leaders could ask for checking - - in a way that would validate work by major journalistic organizations - a great deal could be accomplished.

Foundations, in the US and elsewhere, could and would subsidize the work, if that validation occurred.

Tens of thousands, millions and tens of millions of lives might be saved. And the life prospects of billions of people might be improved - - if a few leaders showed the necessary courage. For example, leaders who are, and will be, meeting in Mexico.

rshow55 - 08:40pm Oct 24, 2002 EST (# 5204 of 5204) 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.

4250 rshow55 9/10/02 7:16am

4251-53 rshow55 9/10/02 8:26am

When large news organizations such as The New York Times cannot solve problems by covering the facts about them -- why don't the solutions happen, when they often seem very clear?

. . .

If the NYT wanted foundation support for web digests, and other extensions of the medium, especially in cooperation with other news operations here and abroad - it would only have to ask people in the foundation community - carefully - and with issues of status and protocol handled gracefully.

Would there be problems, operational and ethical, to deal with? Sure. But they could be worked out.

Some of the problems that newspapers fail to solve can be solved - and solutions could be found fairly soon. There would be work required at the level of technique (and the engineers court format discussed on this thread could be a test bed for resolving most of these). But in addition, for particular purposes -- journalistic powers will have to ask for help to supplement their work for valid pubic purposes. They could get that support -- and should.

Not even the TIMES is rich enough to do without such support - or widely trusted enough to do without broader contacts and patterns of cooperation than it now uses.

Missile defense would be a very good prototype for discussion, in part because the "missile defense" boondoggle involves so many of the same patterns as enronation.

There are many other subjects that could also serve that prototyping purpose well.

In the middle east -- both with respect to the Israel-Palestine mess, and the Iraqi mess -- a number of things need to be clearer than the are. With the internet, and resources around, the nation and the world could do much better.

Everybody's opinions could be questioned. But some facts and relations - considered enough, would crystallize to clarity. And everybody within speaking distance of mainstream discourse could, and could be asked to look for themselves.

That's what persuasion takes in jury trials. When it matters enough - "here -- look for yourself" is the standard. People know how to meet that standard quite often - and they could meet that standard more often than they do.

The technical barriers to meeting that standard are less daunting than they used to be, and some of the social barriers are lower, too.

- - - -

Right now "leadership" might occur if reporters from the TIMES, or other major news powers, asked some "leading" and "shaming" questions of some world leaders - and got them to do their duty.

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Your Preferences

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  / Missile Defense

Enter your response, then click the POST MY MESSAGE button below.
See the
quick-edit help for more information.

Home | Back to Readers' Opinions Back to Top

Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company | Privacy Policy | Contact Us