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 (5872 previous messages)

rshow55 - 06:15pm Nov 17, 2002 EST (# 5873 of 5881) 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.

International law and international patterns of conduct are being redefined, clarified, and renegotiated. Some essential discussion about that is likely when President Bush goes to Europe this week:

Bush NATO Trip Faces Clouds on Iraq, Terrorism Filed at 4:26 p.m. ET

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush leaves this week for a NATO summit in Prague, Czech Republic, where European unease over war with Iraq and new terrorism warnings may overshadow the agenda of reshaping the alliance.

" At the summit the 19-member security alliance born of the Cold War is expected to invite seven countries to join -- including three former members of the Soviet Union.

. . . .

. . . "Europeans remain convinced ``force is fundamentally a last resort.''

"The United States, Daalder said, has shown in its Iraq policy, and earlier in Kosovo, that it views ``force as a first resort or at least as an early resort.''

It would be much, much better if, instead of a question of "early" or "late" - the use of force became a clear resort - - according to rules that could be understood - and that most involved thought were fair.

Those rules must permit the use of force, once clear criteria are met. And must rule out the use of force, according to clear rules, under other defined circumstances.

Otherwise, when stakes are high, talking can't work.

- - -

There are basic human needs. Basic patterns that all human organizations that work have to conform to at least adequately. The rules and needs have to be satisfied together - and in ways that fit together . Otherwise, systems formed are both unsatisfactory and unstable.

5725_5728 rshow55 11/13/02 5:08pm

I think we're making progress toward international relations that meet that goal. In negotiations and discussions that are ongoing. Discussions that, on occasion - will lead to disagreements that will have to be resolved. By fights about ideas, according to rules. Or by force. Both force and ideas matter - and in recent weeks - it seems clear to me that ideas have mattered a great deal.

almarst2002 - 06:20pm Nov 17, 2002 EST (# 5874 of 5881)


Can you pleas expand on what you see as "religion is part of the problem"?

What is so special in Islam other then a unified factor just as nazionalism, racism or shauvinism?

In order to turn the unified factor to militancy, it has to appeal to some real greavences and aspirations of the masses.

Let's take a look at Bin Laden. Here is a sone of the wery wealthy family who could live a very comfortable life investing the oil money in the US stock market just like all the rest of the OIL Kigdoms rullers do. Ask yourself - Why would such a man live in a danger in caves if not for some strong ideas. There is no personal gain to be hold.

No, I still remained absolutly convinced in what I stated before. The real interests of the people who happend to live in an OIL-rich countries are subdued and oppressed by the interests of the so called "Western Civilization". And not just among Arab nations. Look at Nigeria or Venesuella to see the same pattern. There is a increasing pressure on Venesuella to overthrow their democratically elected government just because he tried to retake control of the OIL production for the benefit of the nation. Even in Mexico, the OIL companies hold their alegence to US. None of the developing countries enjoy the full benefits of their posessions nor expand those benefits to the wide population.

rshow55 - 06:24pm Nov 17, 2002 EST (# 5875 of 5881) 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.

My sense is that, though a lot of people are threatened and angry - we're moving toward a situation where the world can be a lot more prosperous, just, peaceful, and comfortable.

A world where most, if not all, of the essential objections Almarst has raised on this board can be adressed in a way that serves the real interests of justice in general and Russia in particular.

It wouldn't take very much change, on very many issues - to make the world much better and safer - and more comfortable for Iraqis and N. Koreans, as well as others.

A key thing, again and again, is that when it matters enough - things need to be checked - by matching for consistency in a number of ways, so primal questions like

What are we fighting about (exactly)?


Why (exactly) ?

can be reasonably adressed. I think we're making progress - and pretty quickly, too.

I think the pace is fairly good - and the fear level may be just about right, too.

People are supposed to be scared about these issues -- enough to pay attention, and get some things right.

And as far as I'm concerned, after a point - people are supposed to do what they agreed to do. For instance, Saddam should disarm - or face military action.

More Messages Recent Messages (6 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