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 (5772 previous messages)

rshow55 - 11:05pm Nov 14, 2002 EST (# 5773 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.

mazza9 11/14/02 10:37pm - - we need to do what we can to defend ourselves - but also do what we can to reduce the reasons for such hate. Organizations based on hate "swim" in a larger human "sea" that tolerates it - if they do tolerate it. We need to build shared space - and get at least enough contact that we should share an effective horror at mass murder. That means dealing with other people, every way we can, as full human beings.

rshow55 - 11:08pm Nov 14, 2002 EST (# 5774 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 8:43pm

The Security Council resolution, after long discussion, and by a vote of 15-0, was for disarmament of Iraq. A disarmament that Iraq has agreed to.

If Saddam Hussein won't disarm -- really disarm - it is clear that war will come.

And, in my view, considering everything, should come.

- -

We do need to make international law clearer - and it is in the process of being renegotiated now. Much hard work has been done recently.

If you consider all the trouble the United States has gone to - to go through the Security Council -- it is clear that the United States, for all its many faults - is making significant efforts not to act lawlessly. If you look at the trouble other nations have gone to at the Security Council - it is clear how widely and how deeply the world cares about getting international law to work. It should also be clear that the forces in the United States that favor international law have staked a great deal on having law work this time.

There is little choice but to build on that. It is practical, and not naive, to do so.

If the disarmament can occur, according to the deal cut at the UN - nations intersted in a real, much strengthened international law will have real power. If the disarmament of Iraq - which Iraq has from time to time agreed to -- is actually accomplished - - we'll have taken big steps away from the law of force -- steps taken and negotiated with the whole world watching carefully - and not too trustfully - at the words and actions of the United States.

This process will be far , far more effective in making the United States a responsible power than anything that can reasonably be anticipated after Iraq repudiates agreements and the the people of Iraq and the world suffer again from the chaos of war.

5555-5556 rshow55 11/8/02 5:56pm

If the Iraq disarmament can be accomplished efficiently and gracefully, effectively and without war - that will have been a great accomplishment for the whole world. A big step toward a workable redefinition of international law. That redefinition and practical resolution can be strongly in the interest of the people of Iraq. That redefinition and practical resolution can do both Iraq and the Arab world honor.

These are tough times - and renegotiation about essentials - in both theory and practice - is happening under real practical pressures. If negotiations continue to go well - as, in the main, they have in the last two months of arduous work, there is a good chance of a "new deal" in international law. There is a good chance that it may be considerably better for the safety and prosperity of the world than the old deal. Clearer. More workable. More fit to real human needs.

I believe that if Iraq, in careful contact with the many nations who wish the people of Iraq well - works through the disarmament process it will have served its own interest - and will face a hopeful, honorable future - with much of the whole world working actively to help Iraq make her way in prosperity, honor, and safety.

rshow55 - 11:11pm Nov 14, 2002 EST (# 5775 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.

I'd add that, if the disarmament goes well, with sensible support on the part of Russia, France, and China - Iraq will become prosperous - and Russia, France and China will stand to make (and in my view, earn ) a lot of money. And a lot of respect, from the whole world, for making the world safer.

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