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 (7357 previous messages)

rshow55 - 08:09am Jan 5, 2003 EST (# 7358 of 7358) 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.

"So to answer the question by example, what would have happened in Hitler's case is that he would never have become Chancelor of Germany and the Third Reich would never have come to pass. But it did.

. With better checking, this could have been prevented.

"The same idea applies to the rest on the list above and others throughout history. The reason such men rise to power is because they are inherently dishonest.

. Yes, but in significant ways, so is George W. Bush.

"Now, your question presumes honesty and good will are simply a choice to be made by the well-meaning...and they are a choice for the well-meaning. However, since the folks who cause the problems are neither honest nor well-meaning, they must lie...they must maintain that false perception before their public...they must hide the dots until their position of power is unassailable.

. That's true, at some levels, of all sorts of politicians - and questions of balance matter a great deal on how one judges the actions involved.

"Secondly, when we're discussing the "relatively few" interfaces we're obviously neglecting the interfaces between intrinsically evil persons like those listed above and their victims. There are tens of millions of those. That doesn't seem like reltaively few to me. It does seem like a gross oversimplification

. I'm not oversimplifying anything, or neglecting to be concerned about victims. I AM saying that systems can be good in some ways, bad in others, and that for peace and stability there are a relatively fre interfaces between nations that have to be right. To avoid fights. If they can't be made right - fights at some level have to happen till the interfaces come to a workable form. Fights about ideas are cheaper than fights that rend flesh - when things can be settled on that level.

"that when coupled with the naive assumption of good intentions reveals a huge flaw in the order, symmetry and harmony of the fundamental basis of the question.

. The question is excellent - because connecting the dots - properly done - can be MUCH better than people have assumed. MUCH better. We'd all be safer if we knew that, and used it.

"If everyone were always honest and well-meaning in their dealings with others then there would be no need to ask the question.

. I have NEVER assumed that.

"No wonder you got a headache, Robert. Don't feel bad though. That question would have given a headache to any well-meaning person who failed to notice that there really is evil in the world.

. I have NEVER failed to notice that there is evil in the world - and ugliness - no little of it in the administration of George W. Bush.

"Perhaps, someday, somehow, evil will be driven out of this world. That would definately reduce the frequency of headaches and heartaches.

. It will NEVER be possible to "drive evil out of the world" in all relevant respects. NEVER - and it is ugly, and evil, and stupid, to think it can be done. Some conflicts and costs are inescapable - including some that can be called evil in clear ways - but we can do a lot better than we've done so far.

(continued in a while)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Your Preferences

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  / Missile Defense


Enter your response, then click the POST MY MESSAGE button below.
See the
quick-edit help for more information.






Home | Back to Readers' Opinions Back to Top


Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company | Privacy Policy | Contact Us