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 (7090 previous messages)

rshow55 - 09:09pm Dec 27, 2002 EST (# 7091 of 7100) 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.

http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/348

Explosive instabilities:
4426 rshow55 9/19/02 3:34pm

. . .

I've been doing my duty: 4429 rshow55 9/19/02 8:39pm

. Links to CIA and my security problems:
3773-3778 rshow55 8/17/02 4:58pm

For us to lessen inhumanity in the future - - we have to deal with things that have happened - within the limitations that we can actually make work - as things are.

I believe these postings from February 27th, 2001 - a few days before almarst was invited on the board - are worth posting again. 358-367 http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7b085/401

I hoped Putin would read that briefing http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7b085/383 340-355.

If Americans would read the same briefing, they might be clearer on the reasons why there is plenty of talking to do with the North Koreans - and it doesn't make either moral or intellectual sense to dismiss them as inhuman, and evil, and try to bully them into submission.

We've been at that, steadily, for half a century and it hasn't worked. It has also been wrenchingly ugly. We should find ways to do better - we have the intellectual, and economic, as well as military power to do so.

lunarchick - 09:10pm Dec 27, 2002 EST (# 7092 of 7100)

IF .... if the USA didn't have the

big-guns

and wanted to affect world changes ... how would it do it?

rshow55 - 09:26pm Dec 27, 2002 EST (# 7093 of 7100) 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.

In Details and the Golden Rule http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md01000s/DetailNGR.htm , originally on Guardian Talk, a "WilliamJUSA" - who had some suspisciously presidential postings, posted this:

wildem21 - 04:23pm May 28, 2001 BST (#30 of 41) THE GOLDEN RULE is, was, and ever shall be:

The one with the gold makes the rules.

------------------------------------------

willjusa - 04:41pm May 28, 2001 BST (#31 of 41)

Or its corollary: Those with the guns make the rules. Or as Capone put it: "You can get a lot further with a kind word and a gun then you can with a kind word alone."

- - - -

The United States has guns as a backup - and a lot of economic power, too. But too often we forget, first, how much intellectual power the United States has, deserves, and uses gracefully. We also forget that people in other nations are human beings , who don't like to be bullied - but are willing to be consulted - talked to - and persuaded.

Sometimes, when we act like bullies, we're our own worst enemies. We make those who oppose us look good.

And devalue the honor and dignity of the United States in clumsy ways that add to our risk, and cost us money as well.

lunarchick - 09:30pm Dec 27, 2002 EST (# 7094 of 7100)

So when folks say they are against the USA

(and kill others just to underline that point)

they are actually saying they are against bullying ...

Whoever made BULLet-proof armour might turn their attentions to BULLy-proofing !

lunarchick - 09:36pm Dec 27, 2002 EST (# 7095 of 7100)

Australia is very good at 'sporting' .. and it doesn't 'just happen' .... it's a matter that looks to science, that takes hours of time over years per sporting individual. Being 'good', being 'best', being 'tops', isn't the pure 'chance' one once imagined.

Working for peace might be a little like going for gold in a sporting event - to lose is war, to win is peace. Peace is won via hours of purposeful negotiation - with desired outcomes in the areas that affect people also known and understood. Peace is about whole populations working towards and for new directives that bind them with common purpose - happily!

More Messages Recent Messages (5 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