The New York Times: Readers' Opinions
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
Tips Go to Advanced Search
Search Optionsdivide
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 (5447 previous messages)

mazza9 - 12:01pm Nov 4, 2002 EST (# 5448 of 5449)
"Quae cum ita sunt" Caesar's Gallic Commentaries

"North Korea Says Nuclear Program Can Be Negotiated".

Robert, What is the term for a negotiation in which one side fails to "Keep its end of the Bargain?" (REMEMBER ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS!!!!!)

Only a fool would be heartened by such a circumstance. You like to subject us to your musings about Casablanca. What about that monumental saga, "The Godfather series?" Shall we make them an offer they can't refuse? Question. Who is the WE and who is the THEY? This is the real issue. Suppose North Korea says, "Tell you what. We take back South Korea, Japan, the Phiilipines and Vladivostok and we promise, (fingers crossed behind back), not to nuc Anchorage.

Very heartened Robert? Does the term nuclear blackmail ring a bell. lchic, these circumstances might be bothersome since the fallout from this situation, (both literally and figuratively!) would effect Australia.

Explain to us, Robert, exactly how this is a heartening state of affairs!

rshow55 - 12:59pm Nov 4, 2002 EST (# 5449 of 5449) 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.

Mazza, while I'm working more on your question - you might want to look at these:

2892 rshow55 7/6/02 10:42am ... 2893 rshow55 7/6/02 10:45am
2894 rshow55 7/6/02 11:08am ... 2895 rshow55 7/6/02 4:10pm

and especially this wonderful Week in Review piece:

. WORD FOR WORD / The Long Gray Line For Tomorrow's Army, Cadets Full of Questions by SERGE SCHMEMANN http://nytimes.com/2001/07/08/weekinreview/08SCHM.html?pagewanted=all

It seems to me that there needs to be a fight about matters of proportion -- and about things that have been done -- and that the ethical position in MacArthur's speech deserve careful considation --- because they express the role of a class that is important, but that needs to have a subordinated role. Here is MacArthur, speaking to cadets.

" Your mission remains fixed, determined, inviolable it is to win our wars. All other public purposes will find others for their accomplishment. Yours is the profession of arms the will to win, the sure knowledge that in war there is no substitute for victory, that the very obsession of your public service must be duty, honor, country."

MacArthur spoke those words after he'd been relieved of command by Truman -- for wanting to widen a war where he'd already ordered the fire bombing of cities, and the destruction of dikes, that killed more than 2 million Koreans in the North -- almost all of them civilians.

After an enormous amount of pain and craziness - the first thing is getting a lot of lines of communication set up - and getting a lot of word count - so that people have some hope of understanding and dealing with a very ugly situation.

Expecting "totally honorable and fair dealing" from the North Koreans (or the US) isn't to be expected. Tricks are to be expected. Distrust is to be expected - and there's plenty of good reason for it. That's good reason for setting up sufficient lines of communication so that checking is possible - - not a reason to cut contact off.

Cutting off communication until big concessions are made (after a great deal of what is arguably gross bad faith on the American side) is not the way to help matters. If it was, we'd have made a lot more progress with the N. Koreans over the last fifty years.

Things are dangerous - and that's a good reason not to handle the communications and necessary adjustments stupidly.

Sometimes, to be brutal is to be stupid.

Back in a while .

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  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' OpinionsBack to Top


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