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 (7162 previous messages)

almarst2002 - 01:14pm Dec 31, 2002 EST (# 7163 of 7168)

N. Korea Accuses U.S. of Plotting War - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58924-2002Dec31.html

" 22,000 South Koreans held a New Year's Eve protest near the U.S. Embassy in Seoul, setting of fireworks and holding candles... "We oppose U.S. policy that spawns tension on the Korean peninsula," some signs at the rally read.

Ambassador Pak Ui Chun said Washington had threatened North Korea "with a pre-emptive nuclear strike," the Interfax news agency reported.

"These conditions also make it impossible for us to abide by the treaty, whose main provision bans nuclear powers from using nuclear weapons against countries that do not have them."

Strongly related: Canadians have their backs up over American foreign policy, according to a new survey that shows the vast majority believe the United States is acting like a bully with the rest of the world. - http://www.canada.com/national/features/yearend2002/story.html?id=DE4F1F61-2715-476F-8DFF-A17A73DFEE21

almarst2002 - 01:21pm Dec 31, 2002 EST (# 7164 of 7168)

Many observers now see an apt comparison to the weeks preceding World War I, when European leaders spoke of avoiding war but set in motion a process that led to a point of no return. - http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1230/p01s03-usmi.html

almarst2002 - 01:25pm Dec 31, 2002 EST (# 7165 of 7168)

The way its done:

Turkey informed the US officially that it wants a share of the Iraqi oil at a rate of 10%, noting that in case that Washington approves the said request, Ankara will get a 5.5 billion dollars of the oil revenues annually. - http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/021228/2002122810.html

almarst2002 - 01:32pm Dec 31, 2002 EST (# 7166 of 7168)

The way it was done:

Rumsfeld 'offered help to Saddam' Declassified papers leave the White House hawk exposed over his role during the Iran-Iraq war. - http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,866942,00.html

rshow55 - 02:05pm Dec 31, 2002 EST (# 7167 of 7168) 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.

rshow55 12/24/02 7:33pm

I've been trying to Send in clear rshowalter "Science News Poetry" 2/14/01 7:18am for a long time. The poem of rshowalter "Science News Poetry" 2/14/01 7:18am is followed by some other interesting material. The poem ends with this note:

In clear: Lying is more dangerous than people think, and soaks up more attention than people know. We can do less of it. We can send in clear - the message, almost always, will be peaceful. And complex cooperation, now so often terminated with deceptive sequences, could happen more often.

If the Guardian, the NYT, and some other first line papers got together (with foundation support if that was needed) and got some things checked we could live in a much safer and more humane world.

If leaders of nation states, or significant officers of nation states, wanted it to happen, I believe it would. Since it hasn't, my respect for indignations, including that of almarst is real, but still somewhat limited.

I think that some changes need to be made - not only in the United States. http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7b085/401

Lately, it seems to me, the US has been trying to do some reasonable things - providing some very hopeful openings - and has sometimes been ignored, at least so far.

I'm in the Madison phone book.

More Messages Recent Messages (1 following message)

 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