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 (5898 previous messages)

rshow55 - 09:08pm Nov 17, 2002 EST (# 5899 of 5903) 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.

5551 rshow55 11/8/02 11:12am includes this:

U.N. Panel Vote Is Unanimous Filed at 10:42 a.m. ET

"UNITED NATIONS (AP) -- The Security Council unanimously approved a new Iraq resolution Friday, forcing Saddam Hussein to disarm or face ``serious consequences'' that would almost certainly mean war.

"The vote came after eight weeks of tumultuous negotiations and was seen as a victory for the United States, which drafted the resolution together with Britain.

If the result is war, it will be a great human failure and tragedy - but the consequences for the world will still be far better than they would have been without the negotiation. If the result is peaceful, practical disarmament - it will be a great and historical step toward a better world.

I'm glad the vote went as it did, and that the negotiation went as it did.

One could look at
Oct 30: 5380-81 rshow55 10/30/02 11:34am
Oct 31: 5409 rshow55 10/31/02 12:19pm
Nov 1: 5437 rshow55 11/1/02 8:40am
Nov 1: 5441-2 rshow55 11/1/02 12:23pm
and some other postings, and think that the MD forum may have been influential and useful in the discourse about Iraq at the United Nations.

I hope so - and think that, at the least, lchic and I have succeeded in setting out some arguments congruent with some useful discussions that have gone on at the UN.

. . . .

International law and international patterns of conduct are being redefined, clarified, and renegotiated.
5555 rshow55 11/8/02 5:56pm . . . 5556 rshow55 11/8/02 5:57pm
and though there's still a lot to be desired - a lot of problems - I think it is a hopeful as well as a troubled time.

rshow55 - 09:13pm Nov 17, 2002 EST (# 5900 of 5903) 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.

When National Security Adviser Rice wrote this, I believe she wrote something profound and hopeful. I'm doing the best I can to help make it true.

" Today, the international community has the best chance since the rise of the nation-state in the seventeenth century to build a world where great powers compete in peace instead of continually prepare for war. . . . . . The United States will build on these common interests to promote global security. " "The National Security Strategy of the United States," . page 2.

For that to be true - we need to make decisions based on' correct information.

almarst2002 - 09:30pm Nov 17, 2002 EST (# 5901 of 5903)

rshow55 11/17/02 9:13pm

"great powers compete in peace instead of continually prepare for war" (Rice)

Sounds great. Except is seems the US is going in exactly the opposite direction. It increases its relative military capabilities and creates the power imbalance beiong anything we have ever seen. It also tries to enlist NATO for a military activities far beiong its original charter. It walkes away from many International treaties and agreements it signed or promoted before. It declares itself as the "ONLY" one in posession of knowlege of what is "Right" and "Wrong". And in having the right to impose its judgement by force.

So, in Washington's view, the future of the World is bright as long as all other nations obey and follow. The sweet dream of any dictatorship.

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