New York Times Readers Opinions
The New York Times
Home
Job Market
Real Estate
Automobiles
News
International
National
Washington
Campaigns
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
Book a Trip
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 (5256 previous messages)

rshow55 - 01:30pm Oct 26, 2002 EST (# 5257 of 5274) 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.

U.S. Raises Pressure on Russia and France for Iraq Resolution By JULIA PRESTON http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/26/international/middleeast/26NATI.html

UNITED NATIONS, Oct. 25 In a tense three-way contest in the Security Council, the United States pressed today for rapid approval of its tough draft resolution to disarm Iraq while France and Russia presented their own informal texts designed to moderate the threat of military attack.

U.S.: We Can Bypass U.N. on Iraq Filed at 12:22 p.m. ET http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-UN-Iraq.html

"SABO SAN LUCAS, Mexico (AP) -- Turning up the pressure on skeptical allies, the White House said Saturday it would be ``not hard at all'' to assemble an international coalition to disarm Saddam Hussein without U.N. help."

I wonder what "not hard" means, in this context, with negotiations where they are, and facts as they are?

It might be quite hard for UK, and for Australia. Who else would be in this "coalition?"

What would be left of international law - or American moral legitimacy?

To get good answers to those questions - the US would have to thread some very fine needles - with an intolerant world watching.

This thread has set out many things that ought to be checked in context. http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7b085/376

Lchic makes many key points here:
5246 lchic 10/26/02 11:25am
5248 lchic 10/26/02 11:37am ... 5251 lchic 10/26/02 11:55am
5252 lchic 10/26/02 11:59am ... 5255 lchic 10/26/02 12:20pm

Here's one connected to a lot of the other points:

WHY NO CHECKING PROCEDURES and STANDARDS ?

We need some. People with influence need to ask for them.

mazza9 - 01:59pm Oct 26, 2002 EST (# 5258 of 5274)
"Quae cum ita sunt" Caesar's Gallic Commentaries

Robert:

You called into question my Space University concept.

Here are the closing remarks made by Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn at the Harvard commencement program in 1978.

"If the world has not approached its end, it has reached a major watershed in history, equal in importance to the turn from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance. It will demand from us a spiritual blaze; we shall have to rise to a new height of vision, to a new level of life, where our physical nature will not be cursed, as in the Middle Ages, but even more importantly, our spiritual being will not be trampled upon, as in the Modern Era.

The ascension is similar to climbing onto the next anthropological stage. No one on earth has any other way left but - upward."

lchic - 04:28pm Oct 26, 2002 EST (# 5259 of 5274)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Asbestos

""rise to a new height of vision, to a new level of life, where our physical nature will not be cursed, as in the Middle Ages, but even more importantly, our spiritual being will not be trampled upon""

The USA Government have KNOWN since the 1930's that THERE IS A PROBLEM with ASBESTOS

and yet

THEY STILL HAVE NO LEGISLATION in place to protect people

Do the USA government care about the Health and Safety of workers ?

Rather than put pressure on ABB trying to send it to the wall, ABB should be showing how derelict the USA government is, was ..... and ever more shall be ...

Apart from spending half their federal budget on working to KILL segments of the world population ... what does it do?

lchic - 04:36pm Oct 26, 2002 EST (# 5260 of 5274)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Sarandon Susan - Washington Today

commented on the

You're either with us or without us

lchic - 04:40pm Oct 26, 2002 EST (# 5261 of 5274)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

LETTER | Alister Cooke

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/2361859.stm

He's out to get Saddam!

More Messages Recent Messages (13 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