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 (6865 previous messages)

rshow55 - 08:45pm Dec 20, 2002 EST (# 6866 of 6897) 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.

Since #584_641 of "Black Holes and the Universe" George Johnson's SCIENCE forum at THE NEW YORK TIMES. filed from 10:56am Jun 2, 1998 EST to 01:31pm Jul 7, 1998 EST prints out to 61 pages, and since I'm having to reformat it to post it on the Guardian (if permitted) - - I'll not do the reposting till morning.

But these questions bother me. The math I was assigned to do, and did do, has very large implications for the national interest.

Why was that not considered effectively enought that the national interest was served.

More selfishly, given context that has been clear to many for a long time --

. did anyone consider my welfare, or the welfare of the AEA investors?

. did anyone with enough power to make a difference care enough about right answers to consider some EXCEPTION HANDLING ?

I've been working very hard, under stress, for a long time. By the time Steve Kline wrote this in 1997, we'd already been working together nearly full time for 8 years - http://www.mrshowalter.net/klinerec .

If people are amazed at how inflexible other cultures are - it might be useful to look at the flexibility (and honor) of the United States.

lunarchick - 09:06pm Dec 20, 2002 EST (# 6867 of 6897)

The Perils of Pauline (above) .... trial in March ...

lunarchick - 09:09pm Dec 20, 2002 EST (# 6868 of 6897)

Showalter - links --- are you saying your 'papers' are disappearing from your website ... just like that!

gisterme - 09:48pm Dec 20, 2002 EST (# 6869 of 6897)

almarst2002 12/17/02 2:17pm

"...The N.K. was proclaimed one of the axis of evil BEFORE any nuclear programs where anounced..."

Gee, almarst, it's almost as if the president knew what was going on in NK before we did! Imageine that! I wonder what else he knows that we don't? Hmmmm.

You might be able to divine some things about what the president knows and we don't by watching some of the things he's doing WRT the "axis of evil". I believe this might be one of those cases where actions speak louder than words.

Maybe. But; has it ever been proven that words can't speak louder than actions? Not to my knowledge; however, actions once taken assume the patina of objective reality. No amount of words can change that reality after the fact.

It's only words that aren't attached to events that can appear and vanish as it seems in torrents of subjective babble, not even beholden to whatever actions (for better or for worse) that they may have prompted.

I'll predict that some things that will happen in Iraq will demonstrate the correctness of those statements. Myriad shadowy words will vanish in a single illuminating moment of truth. Other words will prevail to immortality. The words that vanish will do so along with the credibility and position of those who conceived and spoke them and the words that prevail will do so along with the credibility and position of those who conceived and spoke them.

I suppose that one way that words might speak louder than actions is when words lead to an injured party witholding the sword of vengance. That scenario fits my general understanding of the concept of grace.

Words need to vanish until the notions communicated by those remaining coincide with objective reality. The truth needs to be known... and recognized.

Where the truth is known and recognized, grace can abound.

robkettenburg01 - 09:50pm Dec 20, 2002 EST (# 6870 of 6897)

RobKettenburg's Home Page

More Messages Recent Messages (27 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  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