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 (5817 previous messages)

mazza9 - 12:04pm Nov 16, 2002 EST (# 5818 of 5828)
"Quae cum ita sunt" Caesar's Gallic Commentaries

The Iraqi people may be FREE sooner than expected with minimal damage. The Sunday Times is reporting, "Saddam pays Gaddafi $3 billion to give his family safe haven in Libya."

Rats leave a sinking ship.

So much for lines in the sand.

Who gets credit if this policy succeeds and WMDs are eliminated from the international equation?

rshow55 - 12:12pm Nov 16, 2002 EST (# 5819 of 5828) 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.

We need balances - - and one of the problems - and a problem with Friedman's essay - is that people need to be clearer on a big distinction.

The distinction between logical determination and constraint.

We have to learn to live with both - but understanding which is which gets rid of a lot of mistakes. Including a key one Karl Marx made.

And a lot of mistakes a lot of essayists (including Friedman) sometimes make. The distinction in important - but not yet well embedded in either our language or our minds.

Iraqi circumstances constrain what can be done - but within those constraints, a lot can be done - by people making adjustments and arrangements that they are free to make.

There are plenty of choices within the constraints - and people have much choice in that sense.

People are not free to do things made impossible by barriers that are, at a particular place and time, unchangeable.

Here's an example of a key mistake - one of the more tragic mistakes in history.

Karl Marx said that economics determines history - and too many people bought into that nonsense.

Economic relations constrain - - what can be done -- but do not determine what happens within economic constraints.

Some things are causal. For instance - as a matter of causality - I can't jump 20 feet into the air unassisted. f=ma , and a little calculus that people know is right - make that certain at the level of strict cause.

Some things are matters of constraint. I am constrained to live within my budget - though I might write a check I can't cover - at the level of physical possiblity - there are forces that keep me from doing it - or at least - keep me from doing it very often. Those forces can be thought of as constraints.

People have to live within their constraints - and must ask others to permit them to do so - - if they can.

We all have a lot of choices left, with every reasonable constraint satisfied. And a lot of things can be done with disciplined beauty - and stability - and comfort.

mazza9 - 12:13pm Nov 16, 2002 EST (# 5820 of 5828)
"Quae cum ita sunt" Caesar's Gallic Commentaries

For those of you who have been following the North Korea kidnap episode, please answer me this question. North Korea kidnapped some Japanese citizens in the mid 1960s. They recently allowed one of the women who married an American defector to return to Japan to visit family after all these years. North Korean Japanese ralations are now strained over this affair and the North Koreans are demanding her immediate return.

Under International Law, what are the rights of the kidnapper, (North Korea), in this case? Why is Japan "bent out of shape". Surely the international community through the UN should recognize that the rights of rogue state supercede the rights of the individual! Oops, that is contradictory to the UN's Human Rights code! Sorry for the sarcasm but as long as dictators exist we cannot move to the next stage of evolution in our cultural and political existence.

rshow55 - 12:14pm Nov 16, 2002 EST (# 5821 of 5828) 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 11/16/02 12:04pm - - if that happens - a lot of people get credit. Dawn and I might even get a little. Bush would get some - but people looking at what's been done might be admiring - but still find that their admiration has some limits.

I hope the story is right - it could be a very good solution, from many points of view.

More Messages Recent Messages (7 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