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 (6026 previous messages)

rshow55 - 09:15pm Nov 20, 2002 EST (# 6027 of 6033) 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.

lunarchick 11/20/02 9:04pm

They should all know this:

The process by which human beings "connect the dots" -- form patterns in their minds -- is the same process - - whether the particular relationship "seen" happens to be real or coincidental. You have to check.

They should all know some facts so basic that, at some level - we all have to learn them about the time we learn to talk:

. People say and do things.

. What people say and do have consequences, for themselves and for other people.

. People need to deal with and understand these consequences, for all sorts of practical, down to earth reasons.

Every individual, every group HAS to be responsible for what they do - and what they could have done, but failed to do - - and especially leaders.

Every individual, and every group, has a stake in right answers on questions of fact that they have to use as assumptions for what they say and do. And should be held responsible for the consequences when they accept mistakes and pass them on - and when they intentionall mislead expecially leaders.

SO THERE NEEDS TO BE AN OBLIGATION TO CHECK WHEN CONSEQUENCES MATTER ENOUGH TO BE WORTH THE EFFORT THE CHECKING TAKES.

These are simple things.

If only everybody really knew them.

Especially leaders.

And if only leaders knew that they needed to do things that could stand up to their own aesthetic sense - and that of others - because the worst mistakes and sins are ugly - and people who stay in touch with their aesthetic judgement know that.

rshow55 - 09:20pm Nov 20, 2002 EST (# 6028 of 6033) 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.

If leaders knew these basic things - admitted that they could be wrong - and expected the same of people they led - a great many problems that are intractable today would converge to much more satisfactory patterns.

By "trial and error" - with feedback honestly evaluated - and a reasonable amount of hard, honest work.

Without anybody being any brighter, or very much braver - than they are today.

Things like "missile defense" - subjected to such standards - would fall apart.

So would some key horrors in Saddam's regime.

And many of almarst's concerns would be adressed, and set right.

In ways completely in the interest of people of good will all over the world - and in ways completely in the real interest of the United States.

lunarchick - 09:21pm Nov 20, 2002 EST (# 6029 of 6033)

So as with 'Transparency' and business dealings ... the compilation of a 'world top 100' list ....

So with LEADERS ... there needs to be accountability and benchmarking to ensure incremental improvement .. and monitor the HUMAN RIGHTS of individuals within systems.

The value of people everywhere is the same ... people in monetary terms are 'invaluable' .. they can't be 'made' ... they have uniqueness and value ... how to accept that is the point!

rshow55 - 09:26pm Nov 20, 2002 EST (# 6030 of 6033) 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.

Even with assumptions a lot less perfect and idealistic than lunarchick's - - if people were clear about their assumptions - did honest bookeeping - honest arithmetic - and when things were wrong enough - took the trouble to reframe - and try again - - we'd be a lot farther along - and real human lives would be much safer, and richer.

Step by step.

lunarchick - 09:31pm Nov 20, 2002 EST (# 6031 of 6033)

Ah - so my 'assumption' that the USA is composed of an amalgamation of the riff-raff from the 4Corners of the earth has been declared 'perfect & idealistic' by RS! :)

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