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 (7146 previous messages)

rshow55 - 07:11am Dec 31, 2002 EST (# 7147 of 7154) 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.

We need to know more about exception handling, and handle it better. The golden rule (a principle of symettry) helps. The notion of disciplined beauty (harmony) helps.

(search "golden rule" or see http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md01000s/DetailNGR.htm )
disciplined beauty: 5438-40 rshow55 11/1/02 12:00pm

Some other general principles (checking codes) also help. These principles can often be thought of as clarifications of what people or things naturally do - what "the logic of the situation" naturally produces or favors. What is stable and fit to circumstances.

By the time things are messed up enough that people kill each other, either individually or as groups - some patterns have come into existence that look very bad in terms of the golden rule, or disciplined beauty.

I don't have any idea whether of not God exists. Sometimes logic seems to work better if I'm "sure" that (S)HE exists. Sometimes better if I'm "sure" (S)HE does not. When I'm checking things - doubt works best.

I do feel sure of this. I think that there are some very basic principles and patterns in the world that are built into the logic of circumstances that not even God could change them - and that any God that exists would have sense enough to know it. But I've felt sure about a lot of things, and been wrong. Anyway, that's my feeling, and my guess. I also feel that some those basic patterns can be beautiful , and often are. 6994-995 lunarchick 12/24/02 2:26pm

Almarst , it seems to me that things are sorting out - and some of the ordering looks good, though we're some way from convergence, and things look ugly and contradictory in spots. And, of course, dangerous as well as hopeful. It seems to me that we should keep at it. I think your comments help, but also think that some responsible people in the US are doing their best, and not so badly, at that.

lunarchick - 07:24am Dec 31, 2002 EST (# 7148 of 7154)

NK
"" The North Korean ambassador blamed Washington for the crisis, saying the United States "openly tries to internationalise the nuclear question on the Korean peninsula by creating an atmosphere of pressure on the Democratic People's Republic (North Korea)".

Repeating Pyongyang's calls for direct negotiations with the United States, Mr Pak said the Korean nuclear question was not an international issue and could be solved only by Pyongyang and Washington.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2002/12/item20021231004730_1.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/

commondata - 07:27am Dec 31, 2002 EST (# 7149 of 7154)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,866942,00.html

Howard Teicher, an Iraq specialist in the Reagan White House, testified in a 1995 affidavit that the then CIA director, William Casey, used a Chilean firm, Cardoen, to send cluster bombs to use against Iran's "human wave" attacks.

That was quite some mentor you had there, rhsow. The questions "What would Bill Casey do or want?" seem a little quaint in the face of what he actually did - had he clambered above Maslow's "safety needs" rung?

rshow55 - 07:57am Dec 31, 2002 EST (# 7150 of 7154) 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.

Casey was doing just the best he could. And from where he was, the logic that "sometimes you have to kill people" seemed compelling to him.

And to me.

Still does.

I'm trying to do better. To figure out how to do better. And explain how to do better. As I promised to do. rshow55 12/24/02 5:24pm

Without lunarchick , I wouldn't have a chance. With her - I'm pretty hopeful, and think things have gone pretty well lately.

lunarchick - 07:59am Dec 31, 2002 EST (# 7151 of 7154)

!

More Messages Recent Messages (3 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