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 (5890 previous messages)

rshow55 - 07:50pm Nov 17, 2002 EST (# 5891 of 5896) 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 11/17/02 7:41pm

The question is - Who gave the nation - any nation - the right to impose its values and believes on others by force or thread of force? For such, one has to believe it is above the law or, alternatively, IS the LAW itself. Both of those propositions are unexceptable in my view.

In the world as it is - as it has always been, so far as I know, and as I think it will always be - nations have in fact been imposing their values and beliefs on others by force or threat of force.

I think the human condition involves force, and threats of force, at many levels - and I can't imagine the structure of life otherwise.

For me, the question is - how do we move - step by step - from where we actually are - - to a world where power is more reasonably limited, where people are safer - where human freedom - never an absolute - is greater - and life is more beautiful, more often - and less often so ugly.

I've been working - hard - to find ways to cut down the probability of mass death - and to make the world safer - and so has lunarchick .

My judgement, now - is that the process of negotiation and balancing of interest - the insistence on discussion, clear definition - checking, and standards - is that best path before us.

And it seems to me that it is time - with the process having gone as it has gone, for Saddam to disarm now.

If he does - he'd do a great service to the cause of international law by surviving - and I think he could do so gracefully, and effectively - if he chose to.

almarst2002 - 08:01pm Nov 17, 2002 EST (# 5892 of 5896)

I personaly don't hold my breath in hope for Saddam's suvival.

But, in imosing its vill, even benevolent one, on other nations, is a very dangerous and immoral path in my view.

The really butiful things speak for themselves and do not need to be forced down the throats. Particularely by foreigners who always has their well-being first and foremost in mind. Particularely by those foreigners who happen to live thousends of miles away and can always retread back to the safe home leaving the mess behind for the future generations of the "object of their experiment". Its not very helpfull today to say sorry for the victims of the bombing in Vietnam or Korea, but even that was not done.

almarst2002 - 08:08pm Nov 17, 2002 EST (# 5893 of 5896)

"clear definition - checking, and standards"


I am all for standards. Even one should recognise that, as I pointed out many times in a past, in my view, what is permissible for a small child may be impermissible for a full grown powerful adult. But just think how far are we from applying the equal standards for WMD for example.

rshow55 - 08:31pm Nov 17, 2002 EST (# 5894 of 5896) 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 11/17/02 8:01pm . .

"But, in imposing its will . . .on other nations, is a very dangerous and immoral path in my view."

Always dangerous - and one may say immoral - but some coercion occurs - whenever law is really necessary at all. The Iraqi case is fairly easy in some ways. There was a war. Iraq lost - signed an agreement - and, the argument goes - didn't live up to it. If it did live up to it - - or if it is living up to it now -- that can be checked.

almarst2002 11/17/02 8:08pm ... As for standards - they are important - and they are being renegotated now. And in my view - starting out from a very bad situation - and still not so far from it as I'd like -- there's been good effort and good progress over the last eight weeks. If things could be checked - and if the convention could be established that when it matters enough - there are ways to force checking - - - we could live in a much safer, more stable world than today.

Though always imperfect.

We could, if some leaders actually wanted - get a good deal about the past cleaned up, as well. I think a really objective - multinational - multi-news organization history of the Cold War - using the web as a tool - would be practical and very useful now. We've been talking about that, off and on, since April of 2001 . . . and the time may be getting ripe where it could be done - if only somebody with real rank would make a phone call or two.

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