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 (7378 previous messages)

rshow55 - 06:01pm Jan 5, 2003 EST (# 7379 of 7409) 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.

7373 gisterme 1/5/03 4:23pm - - - includes some interesting things. And of course we agree on a great deal. Probably the definitions of 75,000 words, for example. We disagree in spots.

I'm sure of this. To think about what you say, in every detail, in 7373 gisterme 1/5/03 4:23pm , or just now, would keep me from doing what I'm doing. And so I'll keep trying to do what I've worked for a while to do.

I think that Wizard's Chess http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/05/opinion/05SUN1.html is superb, and bears rereading.

I'm worrying about a "Wizard's Chess" problem. Or two, depending on the level at which the question is defined.

Could the situation in North Korea be resolved, from where we are, step by step, practically - in a way in the interests of all concerned - without war? And if so, how could it be done?

Could the situation in Iraq be resolved, from where we are, step by step, practically - in a way in the interests of all concerned - without war? And if so, how could it be done?

One answer's clear. It can't be done if George Bush and the United States are in the leadership role about everything, step by step.

It seems to me that the answer to both those questions - and questions like them - ought to be "yes."

And it occurs to me that there are enough imperfections in the world that there may be questions worth asking about American leadership, useful as it is in some ways. Including questions Almarst is asking.

I feel like taking my time , gisterme.

rshow55 - 06:14pm Jan 5, 2003 EST (# 7380 of 7409) 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.

Here's why.

I'd like to get to answers that are stable . Not "answers" that cause conflicts to go on almost without end - and unpredictably.

I do think we have time to do some things right. Right for us. Right for the Russians, and the Chinese and the Japanese. Right for both the N. Koreans and the S, Koreans. Right for the Iraqis, and the Israelis. Right for the EU.

Answers aren't right if they are imposed - as a kind of intellectual - diplomatic rape. You've got to persuade. I'm very encouraged - but also tired. I'm not pushing. Things that can converge safely in a sequence of careful steps are absolutely insoluble if some cocksure power holder just imposes a solution.

mazza9 - 07:53pm Jan 5, 2003 EST (# 7381 of 7409)
"Quae cum ita sunt" Caesar's Gallic Commentaries

I must disagree. This forum is absolutely focused and on purpose. We're talking about missile defense and the counterpoise, MAD!

Who can disagree with Robert and Lunarchick's focus on MAD. Remember the Old song lyric, "We belong to a Mutual Amiration Dialog, My looney and Me"?

In an imperfect world Missile Defense is operating. I t will be deployed and will have an effect.

Meanwhile, Robert and his sidekick man the Madmobile in search of Casablanca, Bill Casey and the Armenian Way!

PS Lunarchick! Texas is a "BIG" place. I remember a statistic which stated that if every person in the world was offered a place to live that provided the average amenities of the US, i.e. about 1200 sq ft of living place and comparable infrastructure, then the WHOLE Earths population could be housed in Texas and the rest of the planet could be allowed to return to a pristine state, (of course allowing room for farming and mining to suppoet the world's population). I speak in Earnest!!!!

More Messages Recent Messages (28 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