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.

rshow55 - 08:21am Dec 30, 2002 EST (# 7136 of 7147)
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.

I'm very glad to read U.S. Eases Threat on Nuclear Arms for North Korea By DAVID E. SANGER http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/30/international/30DIPL.html , and think it shows very good convergence in terms of the things that I can judge, isolated as I am.

Almarst's last postings, perhaps especially http://www.consortiumnews.com/1999/122299a.html , are important to remember - they give one pause - they have some wrenching implications - I don't think we should forget them, but all the same, they aren't the whole story. It seems to me that this is a very hopeful time, and for the life of me, I can't see why, as far as the logic of the situation goes, we're not getting close to what we need to know to satisfy the longings expressed in Stevie Wonder's Someday at Christmas http://www.webfitz.com/lyrics/Lyrics/xmas/97xmas.html 7000-7001 rshow55 12/24/02 5:24pm - - we need to reframe some things - and that is being attempted. Some things that are beyond ordinary solution may not be beyond redemption with good, careful reframing - and within limits.

2377-79 rshow55 5/24/02 7:48am Don't want to be too sentimental, but I believe that these poems express some key points - well known, in practice, to some deal-making businessmen and lawyers (active Republicans) of my acquaintance. We need solutions that are true, and work for all concerned. Based on ideas that can "propagate" through the culture - rather than fizzle from too many "Chain Breakers."

We need solutions that are, in a technical sense I try to explain in two poems "redemptive and detonative."

Secular Redemption http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee79f4e/619

Chain Breakers http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee79f4e/618

- -

Mushy idealism? I think not. I think that a lot of good redemptive and detonative solutions happen in the United States of America, and all over the world, every day. They are the solutions, I think, that work best.

We are living in a dangerous but hopeful time - - and things are so complicated that anything but the truth, and balanced right answers, are prohibitively expensive and dangerous.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/1999/122299a.html may be biased in spots - but the picture it paints is a true rendering of too many pictures in the American past. Including many Casey, Kissinger, and George Bush Senior were much involved with. In a world so big, such pictures can blind us to things that can be done, and blight our hopes. We need not to forget them - but we need to work for better things, as well. A lot of Americans, high and low, are working for better answers, for all sorts of reasons, high and low. I'm guardedly hopeful.

I wish I could write better and faster. Almarst , I'll try to respond some more to your concerns today. But I'm also working to review some things I believe have been accomplished on this thread, and working to summarize them. Looking at the paper today, I am again, as I am so often, proud to take The New York Times.

lunarchick - 08:33am Dec 30, 2002 EST (# 7137 of 7147)

^{Glad you're moving on the review of the thread :)}

almarst2002 - 11:21am Dec 30, 2002 EST (# 7138 of 7147)

The Nuclear Temptation - http://globalization.about.com/library/weekly/aa122302a.htm

almarst2002 - 11:26am Dec 30, 2002 EST (# 7139 of 7147)

Getting aggressive about peace - http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,866345,00.html

lunarchick - 06:29pm Dec 30, 2002 EST (# 7140 of 7147)

^{from above} ""This non-violence is the opposite of passivity. It demands respect for the worth of others and an active search for justice. Nor is it submissive. It is not about letting someone take advantage of you - your rights are worthy of respect and you are entitled to assert them. Nor is it about martyrdom - it doesn't seek suffering. It recognises that risk and suffering are inherent in both violent and non-violent lifestyles.

Over the centuries, Quaker experience suggests that anyone committed to a just peace must lay aside assumptions that violent or destructive solutions are the only ones.

(7 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense