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 (5588 previous messages)

rshow55 - 05:27pm Nov 11, 2002 EST (# 5589 of 5651) 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.

With inspections, the US government would get disarmament that Iraq has repeatedly agreed to - - and claims has already been accomplished - on a verified basis. The US gets a more peaceful situation. Iraq gets a more peaceful situation, as well - and relaxation of sanctions.

The way negotiation and reasonable expectations have to go - nations closer to Iraq - definitely including Russia and France - would get the lion's share of the economic benefits from trade with an Iraq free of sanctions under that scenario.

Almarst, I've made analogies between the Nazis and the American administration -- and there are some. Arrogance is one criticism.

But this situation is plainly one where a great deal is different - - and Munich did NOT happen after many, many weeks of negotiations with other nations!

Iraq States Its Case by MOHAMMED ALDOURI http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/17/opinion/17ALDO.html bears reading.

If Iraq, the Arab countries, and the rest of the world want a more peaceful world - with US power most convincingly restrained by a workable rule of law - there should be inspections - and they should be done fully - not grudgingly.

If that happened, a lot of other things could, too. Things in the interest of people of good will everywhere.

If Iraq resists inspections now, there will be war - and it will be a folly and a tragedy. Saddam's name will be remembered a long time -- as one of the great fools, monsters and idiots of history.

If Saddam acts reasonably - in the interests of his country (and, by the way, acting in Russia and France's interest) he could be remembered as a great leader - flawed, but much involved with adjustments that made the world a lot better.

lunarchick - 05:31pm Nov 11, 2002 EST (# 5590 of 5651)

Kabul - 20 Women released - http://www.dawn.com/2002/11/11/top11.htm

Pakistan - 'the boss' told to TAKE OFF ARMY UNIFORM

Pakistan News - bbc Pakistan

More Messages Recent Messages (61 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