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 - 07:19am Dec 5, 2002 EST (# 6350 of 6364)
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.

I'm glad the threads are back!

Posted this on Guardian Talk yesterday: http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7726f/945

I thought The Secret Life of Henry Kissinger by NEAL POLLACK http://nytimes.com/2002/12/03/opinion/03POLL.html was a work of art, and funny, but the end of it gave me a little pause:

" Henry Kissinger is a mathematician gone mad with his own genius. He sits babbling incoherently about shadowy figures who want to read his e-mail messages and track his credit-card purchases. But only he is able to decipher Osama bin Laden's secret code. His wife, Nancy, who fell in love with his brilliance years ago, tries to persuade him, through tenderness, to save the world for democracy. "When will they all stop staring at me?" he shouts through his sobs."

I've had a nice extended Thanksgiving visit with my parents, who are in their 80's - and they'd like me to do better than that, on the math side of things.

But dialog - including the dialog on this thread - may have its uses, too. THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN's An Islamic Reformation http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/04/opinion/04FRIE.html speaks of a "war of ideas."

Sometimes the language of fights, or wars, is the right one. But much of the time, and maybe this time - the adjustments that need to happen for sanity, safety, and decency can get made fairly smoothly - if people can finally decide to look for themselves, check for themselves. Check not just ideas - but facts, as well - and make adjustments when things just don't fit.

Any society that does not give its people the right to doubt, to use their own minds, to think for themselves has rejected any hope of competitive function in the modern world. Some of the Islamic radicals seem to totally reject the right to doubt. Doing so, they reduce the people who follow them to a level that is not fully human. If that is their religion, they and their followers should be ashamed. It is folly. There has to be a fight about the right to doubt. People have to have that right to be fully functioning people - for otherwise they cannot use their minds effectively at all, when they have to deal with anything either difficult or new.

But if the right to doubt is really granted - and people do what seems reasonable to them - thinking it through - forming ideas, rejecting some, and accepting others provisionally -- there may be but little need for other fights - there may be little bloodshed - and the future can be better than today.

Many of the weapons we spend most money on, and put most faith in, are becoming obsolete. With better information handling, much of the reason for lethal conflict may be becoming obsolete as well.

At least, people ought to be clear about what they are fighting about - and clear about why there are no reasonable alternatives.

If people are that clear - they may find alternatives that work very well in every way that matters to everyone involved.

mazza9 - 11:41am Dec 5, 2002 EST (# 6351 of 6364)
"Quae cum ita sunt" Caesar's Gallic Commentaries

Let me see if I understand this. North Korea agrees to eschew its nuclear weapons program and the signatories agree to build light water nuclear reactors for electricity production and deliver 500,000 tons of oil per year in return. Then the North Koreans proceed with their nuclear weapons program anyway! Then they blame the signatories for not living up to the bargain when the signatories stop the nuc plants and oil deliveries when the North Korean's behavior is discovered and admitted to.

Can anyone explain to me who did what wrong? Simple contract law requires contract adherence if an offer is accepted by both sides and payment is made. The North Korean's accepted the aid and still breached the contract. I say let 'em eat dirt!

lunarchick - 06:15pm Dec 5, 2002 EST (# 6352 of 6364)

What goes wrong is that folks in societies that are 'screwed-up' forget how to operate, cooperate, and think logically ... their brains get adled via all the lies required for human survival. All these guys have are 'red' buttons.

So 'who used to be who' in the Iraqi Olymic teams?

almarst2002 - 10:57pm Dec 5, 2002 EST (# 6353 of 6364)

mazza9 12/5/02 11:41am - "Can anyone explain to me who did what wrong? "

Try to look beiong FOX news. You surely will find the answer.

(11 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense