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 (5797 previous messages)

almarst2002 - 07:11pm Nov 15, 2002 EST (# 5798 of 5803)

Roman Catholic bishops in the United States issued a statement today saying that they cannot now find a moral justification for a pre-emptive war against Iraq because there is no adequate evidence that Iraq is about to attack. - http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/14/national/14WAR.html?ex=1038280948&ei=1&en=6943aa0eb40d1407

almarst2002 - 07:24pm Nov 15, 2002 EST (# 5799 of 5803)

They have not in any case relinquished the broader objective of deposing Saddam. They believe these twin objectives are more likely to be met by military intervention. For them, war remains not only inevitable but also desirable. For that reason, they hope and expect the inspections process will fail. - http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,840275,00.html

rshow55 - 07:27pm Nov 15, 2002 EST (# 5800 of 5803) 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 sensible, responsible performance - it shouldn't fail.

5376-79 rshow55 10/29/02 9:05pm

U.N. Official Expects Early Inspections of Iraqi Weapons By PATRICK E. TYLER http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/15/international/middleeast/15CND-IRAQ.html

"WASHINGTON, Nov. 15 As he prepared to depart for Baghdad, the top United Nations weapons inspector for Iraq, Hans Blix, said that his team will commence its first inspections of suspected weapons sites by Nov. 27, which is 10 days earlier than expected. "

Truth and hope:
http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/296

5307 rshow55 11/13/02 6:57am

4366 rshow55 9/18/02 9:26am ... 4366 rshow55 9/18/02 9:26am
4366 rshow55 9/18/02 9:26am ... 4366 rshow55 9/18/02 9:26am

I wonder how tired and stressed the Iraqi leadership is, and how tired and stressed the people in other nations interacting with them are. There is time for the leaders involved to get rested - check their own judgement and comfort - - so that they can make good decisions. I've tried, with lchic , to provide options consistent with peace, the welfare of Iraq, and the needs of people of good will - - and some of what has been posted might make more sense, if responsible people reread it, a second time, after more rest.

5576 rshow55 11/10/02 5:48pm includes this:

In very complex systems, patterns of solutions that exist and seem at all satisfactory, within a system of constraints, are likely to be few or unique. And often easy for people to think about and focus on in ways where they all agree. If they do enough talking and crosschecking. Views converge. People may "connect the dots" differently from particular viewpoints - but when things are considered in detail, from many different angles, with everything that matters considered - differences tend to iron out - if not about feelings, at least about facts. And to an important degree, about feelings, too. That makes considering real complexities not just daunting, but hopeful. It can find solutions that actually work, and that meet all the valid needs of everyone involved.

(Complexity: http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7b085/385 )

It seems to me that if Iraq, supported by other nations, finds ways to fully and convincingly cooperate with what the UN resolution asks - and lives up to its own words -- Iraq will have played a major part in working out some problems for the whole world. And can and should do so in ways that are graceful and honorable. Ways that preserve and augment Iraqi interests in Iraqi terms. And that serve the interests of the whole Arab world. It looks possible.

It will help if people are rested enough to make reasonable decisions. And check not only facts - but their own fatigue and stress level - so that they can make good judgements. Out.

almarst2002 - 07:30pm Nov 15, 2002 EST (# 5801 of 5803)

America's hawks are obsessive in their pursuit of war - http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,839622,00.html

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