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 (6503 previous messages)

rshow55 - 05:22pm Dec 11, 2002 EST (# 6504 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.

Charles Dickens is an author I admire - though George Orwell's reservations about Dickens' social criticism still make sense. Dickens felt that the world could be much better - if people were more sensitive - more fully alive -- more decent. Without major social change. Orwell pointed out that this was a viewpoint that was incomplete, at best - sometimes fundamentals had to change. But Orwell still granted Dickens' point, in large measure. The New York Times, a conservative operation - takes a pretty "dickensian" view most often, and so do its readers. Sometimes I do as well - though I think Karl Marx said some interesting and valid things.

The first line of Dickens A Tale of Two Cities goes something like this:

"It was the best of times. It was the worst of times. "

Plenty of bad in our times, as well. Let me annotate valid points Commondata makes commondata 12/11/02 2:55pm , bolding Commondata's language, indenting my comments:

"During the two and a half years of this thread,

"militarism increased

by some measures - but the acceptance of militarism decreased in most of the nations of the world - and in most human popultions. And discussions about the justifications of militarism have sharpened considerably. That can only tend to reduce unjustified military expenditures and activities. I personally believe that militarism can be reduced very substantially - simply by pursuing facts to closure - in public. In the "missile defense" area - that might be particularly easy to do. MD1075-76 rshow55 4/4/02 12:20pm cites a pattern of dicussion that I believe would go a long way towards delegitimizing most MD expenditure - and a great deal of other expenditure, as well. Alas, to execute the discussion would take some money and help.

"inequality increased

Yes, inequality did. But the reasons for inequality may be getting clearer - some of the false promises of globalism have been discredited - and people are getting clearer on problems that certainly going to be insoluble until they are better defined so that workable solutions can be proposed, debugged, and implemented.

(more)

rshow55 - 05:23pm Dec 11, 2002 EST (# 6505 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.

"dependence on oil remained total

That's a relatively easy problem to solve (as global warming is, as well) if people were actually prepared to sit down and solve it. The technical parts of the solution are especially easy - and the socio-technical parts not too difficult, either. Ideas on this thread - if I could be free to pursue them, might help. It ought to be possible to get the world all the energy it need for human needs - forever -- and do it soon.

civil liberties suffered

in spots, that's true. In a world where 250,000 people die every day - and attention is limited - it is hard to get perspective. There are more examples of horrible violations of civil liberties than anyone can attend to. . . Whether civil liberties suffered overall, I'm not sure. The fact that Iraq emptied its prisons is an important example, I believe - of reasons to think things may be getting better.

ecological degradation continued apace

and will continue, till people do some "connecting of the dots" and some work to get some ideas to closure - - something that hasn't been done - but that is increasingly possble. The technical reasons for ecological degradation are shrinking fast - the challenges wouldn't be much of a tax on the human race - if we thought straighter. New technical means that can assist straight thinking are being worked out - with some of that working out being attempted on this thread.

a crazy cult declared war on the Western world

That crazy cult has been brewing for some while - and it isn't much of a challenge. Body counts, so far, are very, very low - - and the Islamic world, after some flopping around - is likely to clean some things up after taking a good look at the "logic" they're supporting that generates that crazy cult.

the "missile defense idea" is spreading and growing

Oh really? I wonder if you can find a single serving officer in one of the non-US NATO countries who has much faith in it - as a practical and tactical matter. My guess is that most of the US military - and Bush - knows how ineffective "missile defense" is - and will remain. The reasons for missile defense ,these days, involve bluff, and a need to continue paying a military-industrial complex that has grown so that it is now far bigger than it rationally should be. Political leaders face a big challenge dealing with the massive fact that the United States has committed its society to something like a trillion dollars worth of expenditure that no longer makes sense.

(more)

More Messages Recent Messages (1 following message)

 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