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 (5570 previous messages)

rshow55 - 07:52am Nov 10, 2002 EST (# 5571 of 5574) 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.

I've been thinking about solutions, as well - though in a different spirit from newskillz - - though we both have concerns about issues of status.

Last March, I thought Putin might be stumped, and just as an exercise, set out a "briefing" for almarst on this thread. That part of the thread is not online anymore - but I have reposted the briefing on Mankind's Inhumanity to Man from #340 to #356 .

Could Saddam be stumped?

Last year, when Dawn Riley pointed out Muddle in Moscow we were excited - - and did the best we could - in the hope of aiding international understanding and peace.

Reasons to like Saddam are much less than reasons to like Putin - but all the same, if Saddam acted wisely now - it might be a very good thing, not only for him - but for the whole world.

Could there be a Muddle in Baghdad somewhat analagous to that described in Muddle in Moscow ?

I think Bill Casey would have thought so - and think that he might approve of it if someone could find a way to make that muddle less. Putin could. There is a concern about "sovereignty" - and it is a valid and important one.

If Iraq can disarm, as it has agreed to do - and do it gracefully, credibly - smoothly -- there will have been a regime change in a lot of ways that matter. Given real options - just now - it seems to me that regime improvement might be better than regime overthrow.

There are some issues of status exchange that are going to be very important if the UN disarmament is to succeed - and they need to be considered carefully enough for workable results.

If anybody has any ideas, and wants to call me to discuss this, they should go ahead.

I'm thinking seriously about reproducing in full the words on a postcard I sent to a person at the New York Times - because it deals with status exchanges, briefings, and issues of force. If anyone objects to that, in the next little while, they should let me know - - though I may not use it anyway, for reasons of politeness. Politeness is very important. Clarity is, too. Sometimes, with work, it is possible to have both.

If Saddam is concerned about sovereignty, and wants input from a real expert, with an expert staff - he might find ways to talk to the Queen of England.

We need to make adjustments, step by step, from where we are - that actually work in practical human terms.

rshow55 - 08:37am Nov 10, 2002 EST (# 5572 of 5574) 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.

That postcard included this (5375 rshow55 10/29/02 9:04pm ) :

"Some explosive instabilities need to be avoided by the people who must make and maintain . . . relevant agreements. The system crafted needs to be workable for what it has to do, have feedback, damping , and dither in the right spots with the right magnitudes. The things that need to be checkable should be.

" Without feedback, damping, and dither in the right spots with the right magnitudes -- a lot of things are unstable - even when those things "look good," "make sense" and there is "good will on all sides."

" . . . . Unless we get some things in better balance - costs in money, blood, and trouble will be much larger than necessary."

The test of the agreements is how they work in practice, not just on paper. We're making that kind of transition - and if there are more agreements that need to be understood and worked out - we better make them. There's plenty of time, with the schedules now agreed to.

More Messages Recent Messages (2 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