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 - 06:25pm Jan 1, 2003 EST (# 7195 of 7200)
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 dealing here with issues that Bill Casey found wrenchingly difficult - and very, very important. Problems central to decisions involving life and death of many, many people.

I wish the old b*stard was alive, so I could talk to him, and show him what has been accomplished by Kline- lunarchic - Showalter - plus supporters and kibbitzers.

I think Bill would be very pleased. And would accept the decision I made when I finally set this out in public:

. "It is now technically easy to shoot down every winged aircraft the US or any other nation has, or can expect to build - to detect every submarine - and to sink every surface ship within 500 miles of land - the technology for doing this is basic - and I see neither technical nor tactical countermeasures."

( http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/332 and onward.)

Once some key patterns are sorted out - a lot of things can condense.

We can agree on almost everything that matters for complex cooperation - so muddles and fights can become much rarer.

We can learn to sort out our problems in terms of that standards we ourselves have.

And we can learn that there are some arguments that can never be resolved, and never should be.

Pardon me for moving slowly. Some problems that have been central to philosophy and problems of action since Plato's time - problems of deep concern to C.P. Snow, and the people who write science for The New York Times - are coming into a more convergent condition.

I'm hopeful for an number of reasons. Some pure. One motivation is strong, and primal. I'd like to get paid. It will take some exception handling - but that exception handling should be justified. I'm grateful for a chance to have a place to say some things in public.

lunarchick - 06:26pm Jan 1, 2003 EST (# 7196 of 7200)

C H A N G E

he said

is the KEY WORD

'Hope has finally defeated fear'

Vision | he's looking to 3 square meals per day
for all Brazillians - stamp out hunger!

lunarchick - 06:33pm Jan 1, 2003 EST (# 7197 of 7200)

If 'man' is eternally optermistic .... wanting a 'better' future ... willing to accept 'change' under best leadership to obtain that improved future ...

Raises the question

Why isn't 'man' universally moving towards a global-better-good?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Interesting to note that two Pacific Islands hit last weekend be a massive cyclone have only 'just' been observed by a light aircraft-photographer.

The world can be slow to react to need - the Solomons haven't got the cash to send ships, fix the radio transmitters ..... HELP!

lunarchick - 06:56pm Jan 1, 2003 EST (# 7198 of 7200)

Blair's NY speech - a glum 2003

Wedgewood Benn (audio) says see Iraq within the UK's foreign policy historical perspective.

(2 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense