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.

rshow55 - 09:33pm Nov 20, 2002 EST (# 6032 of 6046)
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.

An Aussie should talk?

Not all of our founding fathers and mothers were convicted and ejected from their previous land.

Though some were.

Considering, some things have been pretty well done. In the US, and Australia, too.

lunarchick - 09:35pm Nov 20, 2002 EST (# 6033 of 6046)

The real point i was making is that people are much 'the same' ... the differences emerge under different 'systems' ...

Imperfect systems have to be incrementally - or even radically, improved to give all humans (as Australians - not to be confused with Austrians (Americans note))

A FAIR GO!

fredmoore - 09:44pm Nov 20, 2002 EST (# 6034 of 6046)

Goo Goo .... Gaa Gaa .... Raspberry .... Missile ... Whoosh!

Wheres the defence ??

lunarchick - 09:50pm Nov 20, 2002 EST (# 6035 of 6046)

Where is the defence ... ??

In the Rational MIND
of entire mankind

not the bunker
still the stumper

In the Rational MIND
of entire mankind

rshow55 - 09:55pm Nov 20, 2002 EST (# 6036 of 6046)
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.

This connects to defense:
http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/351

The key things that Eisenhower warned against in his Farewell Address http://www.geocities.com/~newgeneration/ikefw.htm have happened - - and we need to fix them.

Out.

almarst2002 - 10:29pm Nov 20, 2002 EST (# 6037 of 6046)

My principal and basic rejection of the reasons for foreign forceful intervention (military or sunctions or blocade), even arguebly benevolent one, is based on the following:

- The lack of responcibility for the outcome

- The natural selfishness when choosing the solutions

- The effect of the "Law of Unintended Consequences" as result of the ignorance, lack of deep and real understanding of the foreign nation problems, culture, history and traditions.

We may all agree that the reason the big Parent may punish (to the extend) his/here Child is only because it assumes the full parental responcibility for the outcome as well as the natural villingness of the animal to protect and defend its children even for the price of its own life. The great LOVE. Can you convince me there is a great love in a Washington for the Iraqi people? Or, for this matter, in London for the people of Zimbabve or Iraq? London in particular since most of today's world problems have being carefully and purposedly DESIGNED by the British Empire.

almarst2002 - 10:35pm Nov 20, 2002 EST (# 6038 of 6046)

Imperfect systems have to be incrementally - or even radically, improved"

From WITHIN!

And please, too many people too often confuse smartness with LUCK. The soberness usually comes after the Mr. LUCK leaves for a fresh new "home";)

(8 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense