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 (5768 previous messages)

rshow55 - 06:06pm Nov 14, 2002 EST (# 5769 of 5777) 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.

almarst2002 11/14/02 5:13pm - - makes a point that is essential - lying is far too common to be much of an offense - certainly not a cause for war.

- - My last posting includes this:

"If Saddam denies that he's told some lies - that people all around him have done plenty of lying - and that some key things in his regime have involved deceptions and misjudgements - - - then he's classified hope out of existence.

He's classified hope out of existence because he's classified flexibility and reasonable right answers out of existence.

For instance - my reasonably educated guess is that Saddam may well have some WMD, and have lied about it. That, in itself, is no reason for war. Or all that much indignation. Americans have done plenty of lying. That ought to be an easy thing to prove.

Everybody lies some. If we admitted that - a lot of things would be much less rigid - and there would be more hope of sorting things out.

If Saddam admitted what everybody really knows -- that he's lied some - he and the rest of the world would be in a much better position to ask for some truth from other leaders - including GW Bush. Then there would be a lot more to hope for.

The US wants Iraq disarmed because they think the regime is unstable (for some reasonable reasons, from an American point of view) - and feel justified in pushing the matter because Iraq agreed to do so at the end of Gulf War, and has agreed to since.

Everything considered, including Iraq's own statements - it seems to me that the disarmament is justified.

It has certainly been negotiated at length - and the vote in the Security Council ought to have a great deal of weight. It does with me.

We'd all be much safer if we understood, and admitted more clearly, the extent of deception in the world. - the extent to which people, including leaders - not only make mistakes - but sometimes dissemble.

If we understood that - without claiming to be scandalized - we could justify checking things - and getting a lot of things sorted out.

If the penalties for lying are too high - we can never sort out a lot of things we need to sort out.

The incidence of deception in the world is maybe 10-20 times what people are willing to admit - and if we acknowledged that - a whole world of hopeful possibilities would open up.

lunarchick - 08:34pm Nov 14, 2002 EST (# 5770 of 5777)

Interesting links (above) giving background and understanding.

Saddam has to say ..

'this week I walked through a revolving door the past is behind me not to be revisited.... a pluralistic-future, to be filled with wonderful opportunities lies ahead ... '

Perhaps the people of Iraq need a social contract ... 9/10 are subject to the whim of the State .... all people require laws, rights and a purpose in life.

will get back to this later ... |>

almarst2002 - 08:43pm Nov 14, 2002 EST (# 5771 of 5777)

"the disarmament is justified"

I would be if the political climate of today's world was different.

But it seems the Rule of Force is what still counts the most, not the Rule of Law. And I lay a great part of responsibility for this on US.

As I tried to point before, any country, particularely the small one, may see the WMD as the only option to prevent being attacked by a huge superpower. This seems to be a pretty strightforward logic. The only other option could be a turn to use the tread of terror, particularely bio-terror.

If small child faced the Mike Tycon, could anyone blame him of fighting not according to the rules of ring?

My point is - The US, nor other permanent SC members are in a moraly justified position to demand disarmament. And the least of all - the US.

mazza9 - 10:37pm Nov 14, 2002 EST (# 5772 of 5777)
"Quae cum ita sunt" Caesar's Gallic Commentaries

Here is a doomsday scenario from a "purported" Al Quida operative.

Such hate!

More Messages Recent Messages (5 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