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 (5334 previous messages)

rshow55 - 07:50am Oct 28, 2002 EST (# 5335 of 5341) 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.

1897 rshow55 4/30/02 9:14am reads:

MD1885 rshow55 4/29/02 3:45pm. . . raises interesting points.

In the end, when it matters enough, people have to make decisions for themselves, that THEY are comfortable with -- and it involves "connecting the dots."

How those dots are connected matters a great deal.

Unless we find ways to get closure on facts and relations that matter, more effectively than we do now, most of the most ugly problems in the world will remain unsolved.

When people get their facts and relations straight, they do quite well already. It is when they do not that things go terribly wrong.

- - -

Now - to actually get key issues on a project costing many tens of billions - and casting doubts on other programs and undertakings with a value approaching a trillion dollars - - what might have to happen?

It would take some resources - - and some courage - - and if I were to be involved - I'd need a security question clarified in writing.

The techniques of persuasion the administration is committed to are based not on getting focusing of facts --- but avoiding facts.

Often with political technology that is highly evolved to avoid the truth - and fair and honest conduct. Here's an example of how "reasoning together" too often works in our politics:

Bush 2000 Adviser Offered To Use Clout to Help Enron Joe Stephens Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, February 17, 2002; Page A01

" Just before the last presidential election, Bush campaign adviser Ralph Reed offered to help Enron Corp. deregulate the electricity industry by working his "good friends" in Washington and by mobilizing religious leaders and pro-family groups. . .

The whole of Stephens piece bears reading - it has a certain grim family resemlence to a great deal of other "persuasive technique" the Bush administration shows.

The New Jersey Ethicist by BILL KELLER

" Allow me to quote my favorite moral philosopher, Karl Rove. Remember what he told Republican candidates back in June? "Focus on war." (O.K., he's no troubadour, but the man gets to the point.) D'you think he meant, "Let's all focus on the war and have a moment of silence and feel blue?" Of course not, knucklehead, he meant, "Take the war, and run the wussy Democrats into the ground with it."

Some responsible politicians, of both parties, ought to be asking careful questions. Leaders of other nation states should be asking them too. And wondering about the motivations behind things being done.

To check facts, you put pieces of "evidence" thought to be credible and important by somebody together - - in a number of ways - - and crossmatch for consistency. With the internet, as small staff, and some not-very-difficult umpiring - which can be completely transparent - a great deal of such crosschecking and matching can be done. Not everything can be clarified - but many things can be - - with effort, most often, everything that matters.

If leaders of nation states asked for it - and/or if American political leaders could find the courage to ask for it -- a great deal could be sorted out - and the world would be a safer, warmer place.

lchic - 08:35am Oct 28, 2002 EST (# 5336 of 5341)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

In 1963 the guy on top perch - who killed him

Was it the USA Military - if so - why?

Was it L H Oswald - if so - why?


lchic - 08:52am Oct 28, 2002 EST (# 5337 of 5341)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

I just had an interesting conversation with Showalter - and no Gisterme didn't follow-up on the invitation to call

As our conversation moved into the zone of

Bush Texas | Fox Mexico

the quality of sound so deteriorated it was impossible to continue discussion

The Parliamentarian (Senator/Congressman) in charge of telephone eavesdropping might refer to the log.

How much tax payer's money went into the Great USA Democracy preventing our discussion?

Seems Showalter has to be a person of key interest to the USA - a great 'thinker' - and as such there was a determined effort just now to create such a level of interference on the phoneline that Showalter's thoughts stayed 'in the homeland' rather than cross 'the big pond'.

More Messages Recent Messages (4 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