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 (5453 previous messages)

rshow55 - 05:56pm Nov 4, 2002 EST (# 5454 of 5457) 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.



rshowalter - 09:45pm Oct 16, 2002 BST (#342 of 367)  | 

rshowalter - 05:38pm Mar 17, 2001 EST (#1129

rshowalter Sat 17/03/2001 16:51

    " War-vain glorious war gives silent approval to every sin on the face of the earth. It justifies acts against the enemy that are precisely anti-thetical to what is accepted inside the society. .
    "The truth is bad enough and in some respects we must allow the truth hold center stage.
People can be guilty and victims at ONCE.

People can be monsters and good people at ONCE - in different aspects of their lives, or at different times.

An article that muddles this was published today which argued that because the Poles were victims themselves, they weren't guilty, or anyway, not very guilty, about what they did about to the Jews in WWII .

Life isnt that simple. It isnt that easy. There is no contradiction. Only the compexities of the human condition.

The Japanese somehow feel that the horrors that they perpertrated in WWII - among them atrocious crimes against women, can't be remembered, because somehow that would make the good things in Japanese culture unthinkable.

Rape Camp -- by Dawn Riley bNice2NoU "There's Always Poetry" Mon 26/02/2001 05:14

Japan may be having problems now, because, here and in a lot of other ways, they are telling lies. Lies that keep them from facing more complex realities.

rshowalter - 05:38pm Mar 17, 2001 EST (#1130

The problems of Russia, and the problems of dealing with the horrors of the Cold War, and the miserable way it is continued, are morally hard enough. Because much of the truth is ugly. But the ugliness is not unthinkable, if one recognizes that one is not dealing with contradiction, but complexity, then one is dealing with situations where there is some hope of better action in the future. The ugliness of the past should not be forgotten, and it must be dealt with -- but it need not paralyze us.

The ugliness may involve crimes that need to be uncovered and punished. Or situations where only a secular redemptive solution is possible, or reasonable. In the situations that Russia faces, and the world faces, and America faces, it seems to me that there are some of each kind, and problems that require both approaches.

But, so long as people can understand the past well enough so that they can learn from it, and react in terms of a workable system of agreed upon facts, society can function well, and justly. For complicated enough situations, the only safe and reliable "system of agreed-upon-facts" has to be true.

More Messages Recent Messages (3 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