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 (6584 previous messages)

gisterme - 05:52pm Dec 13, 2002 EST (# 6585 of 6594)

rshow55 12/11/02 2:33pm

"...- whether people found that they should "call me Ishmael" or not..."

Thar she blows!

"...In my case, an intersting wrinkle on the "new forum" of the internet is how reluctant people of all kinds can be to actually get checking done to closure..."

Not just your case, Robert. Consider Ms. Boof and what "checking to closure" might mean if there really were a fatwa issued against her. That's an extreme case indeed but one that demonstrates the wisdom of maintaining some anonymity. After all, who knows when or why a fatwa might be issued?

I disagree that there's no way to discern the difference between facts and fantasies in the internet forum world. People have common sense and knowledge of their own. They can read and decide. If they believe a lie, they'll find out eventually. People are genearlly not fools.

I don't think personal "names" are important in the web forum world. Just as is true in personal relationships an established web identity is the result of reltationships with other web identies that's built over time. If somebody else tried to post much under your moniker, Robert, it wouldn't take me long to recognize that it wasn't you. If lchic's posts suddenly began to have some focus on missile defense, I'd know that wasn't really her. If somebody else tried to post as gisterme, I'll wager that you'd know that too.

Just posting names on the web really doesn't mean much either. For example I could look in the phone book of any city, adapt a name I like and then claim on the web that that's me. Just as others do, I could say "I'm listed in the such-and-such phone book. Look me up".

I'd rather my web identity be uniquely recognized by the characteristics of posted ideas, opinions and personality than by association with my name; just as my body can be uinquely recognized by the characteristics of its finger tips no matter what name I might go by. And, oh by the way, "gisterme" is a unique name. That's good enough for me.

gisterme - 06:02pm Dec 13, 2002 EST (# 6586 of 6594)

almarst2002 12/11/02 4:13pm

"...A Bush administration strategy announced yesterday calls for the preemptive use of military and covert force before an enemy unleashes weapons of mass destruction,..."

"...Robert, still hopefull?..."

Can't speak for Robert, Almarst but I'd say that is hopeful. Certainly more hopeful than a policy of waiting until after weapons of mass destrution have been unleashed before doing something about it.

gisterme - 06:31pm Dec 13, 2002 EST (# 6587 of 6594)

almarst2002 12/11/02 4:50pm

"...Osama is a symptom..."

Oh? A symptom of what, Almarst?

"...You won't cure the desese by removing the symptom..."

Nor will you cure it by trying to convince the immune system that it is some other disease.

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

Surgery is especially useful when the cause of the problem is known and surgery can help it.

"...Have you ever heard about Holistic approach?..."

Sure, Almarst. That's the approach we've been taking with Saddam since the Gulf War.

"...Do you realy understand the reasons behind events?..."

Of course I do.

"...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..."

Well said. That's the fundamental attitude that both Saddam and Osama have in common, Almarst. I'd wager that it's the forgotten lesson that will be their undoing.

rshow55 - 06:36pm Dec 13, 2002 EST (# 6588 of 6594) 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.

Gisterme , I'm impressed with some of the things you're saying - and I'll take time to think, and respond carefully.

I'm feeling hopeful - and thinking about a limitation that I have - - and that may explain at least some of the problems of Bin Laden - - and in some ways, Saddam, too.

Intellectuals, often enough, get themselves and others into trouble.

Paul Johnson wrote a good book about that.

More Messages Recent Messages (6 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