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 (6492 previous messages)

rshow55 - 04:14pm Dec 11, 2002 EST (# 6493 of 6506) 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.

May be God indeed lost any hope with his "experiment" on this Planet?

I've been worried about that. But I was a lot more worried before I got a chance to talk to almarst on this board 1999-2000 rshow55 5/4/02 9:39am

. . . though maybe I should be getting more worried. Because the "tests" before us now look so easy to pass.

If we flunk them, and God gets tired of the show, he'll have a point.

Working to annotate Commondata's trenchant comments.

rshow55 - 04:18pm Dec 11, 2002 EST (# 6494 of 6506) 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 12/11/02 4:13pm . . . yes.

We need to get away from circumstances where the logic of extermination makes sense.

Sometimes, these days, it still does.

250,000 people die every day in the world. You have to have some perspective.

I'd also say this. If a homogeneous nation state actually says - "we are in a fight to the death with you" . . there may be times where the only reasonable thing is to oblige them.

We need to find better solutions.

Without asking human beings, as animals, to be better than they are.

That ought not to be beyond the wit of man.

almarst2002 - 04:24pm Dec 11, 2002 EST (# 6495 of 6506)

"If a homogeneous nation state actually says "

Are you calling the dosen "choosen" man at the rule of the single "choosen" superpower a homogeneous nation state?

To mee it seems rather similar to the declaration of the Pop predicting the fate of all non-believers during a time of an inquisition.

almarst2002 - 04:26pm Dec 11, 2002 EST (# 6496 of 6506)

"250,000 people die every day in the world"

I see. And the 400+bn military spread all over the Glob is designed to save them.

rshow55 - 04:37pm Dec 11, 2002 EST (# 6497 of 6506) 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.

almarst , most of the time, I'm on your side. I think the US military-industrial complex is bloated.

I also think that things have to come under rational, decent control step by step.

I do not share all your indignation.

There are things that people are going to be willing to fight about - even fight to the death about - and that's not going to change, nor should it.

We have to live in a world where the animal realities are as they are.

There are ideas and territories that people are willing to defend - and have to be.

The world can be a lot better than it is, without changing that.

And if every follower or sympathizer with Osama Bin Laden died tomorrow, some might mourn (I probably wouldn't) - and you might be aghast -- but it would not be the end of the world.

almarst2002 - 04:50pm Dec 11, 2002 EST (# 6498 of 6506)

rshow55 12/11/02 4:37pm

Osama is a symptom. You won't cure the desese by removing the symptom.

And I also recognise the logic of the Western medicine leaning toward surgery.

Have you ever heard about Holistic approach? Do you realy understand the reasons behind events?

The power breeds the ignorance and the feeling it can and should rule. Even have God-given right to do so. While forgeting the lesson it gives by doing that.

I am not a follower or beliver of BL. But if you start an open fire in a middle of a house, don't blame the wood or the wind for the cosequences.

More Messages Recent Messages (8 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