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.

gisterme - 09:15pm Jan 5, 2003 EST (# 7382 of 7409)

rshow55 1/5/03 4:53pm

WRT how one might calibrate charity and mercy without changing their natures...

"...That connects to questions of what calibration means, applied to anything that can be defined in a dictionary - and I'm trying to answer that well..."

Of course it applies to that, Robert. Let's see if "calibrate" itself is in the dictionary!

It is!

From Merriam-Webster:

"...cal·i·brate

1 : to ascertain the caliber of (as a thermometer tube)

2 : to determine, rectify, or mark the graduations of (as a thermometer tube)

3 : to standardize (as a measuring instrument) by determining the deviation from a standard so as to ascertain the proper correction factors

4 : to adjust precisely for a particular function..."

Now that you mention it, Robert, it would seem that none of the dictionary definitions of "calibrate" seem to fit the usage you've been subjecting us to. I'll bet that's why you're having such a hard time figuring out what "calibrate" means or perhaps how you're going to wiggle out of such a long record of misusage.

According to the definition(s), "calibrate" would certainly not seem applicable to "anything that can be defined in a dictionary" as you've said it does.

Forget about charity and mercy what about those mental processes you're always talking about calibrating? How would you accomplish that? Drugs?

I think it's time for you to go back to "square one" with your theories about calibrating cultural systems. Either that or find some other word you can use without having to have your own personal definition.

gisterme - 09:29pm Jan 5, 2003 EST (# 7383 of 7409)

rshow55 1/5/03 6:01pm

"...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?..."

Of course it could, Robert. All that would be necessary is for Kim Jong Il to keep his international agreements. After all, the US kept its agreements with him until it was revealed last December that he had gone ahead and developed nuclear bombs in spite of his agreement not to do so.

"...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? ..."

Of course it could. All that would be required is for Saddam Hussein to comply with the UN resolutions he has been violating for the last eleven years.

"...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..."

Why is that so clear to you, Robert? It's surely not clear to me. In fact, so far as NK is concerned the US is the injured party, in that it kept its agreement and NK didn't. Even so, the president isn't talking about going to war with NK. Do you criticize the US for not unilaterally insisting on satisfaction?

So far as Iraq is concerned, the US has been proceeding within proper UN channels.

All that said, why shouldn't the US take the leadership role in handling either of these problems? Whom do you think would be better qualified?

gisterme - 09:39pm Jan 5, 2003 EST (# 7384 of 7409)

rshow55 1/5/03 6:14pm

"...I'd like to get to answers that are stable..."

You wouldn't know a stable answer if it slapped you in the face, Robert. You can't even make a statement without qualifying any merit it may have out of existance by your dithering.

"...Not "answers" that cause conflicts to go on almost without end - and unpredictably..."

Robert! "Conflict to go on almost without end" seems to exactly describe your apparent desire for this thread! You never get the convergence you're always talking about because you can't take a stand on anything.

You're so worried about WIBBLE WOBBLING and switching from this to that and maintaining flexibility that it leaves your positions completely spineless.

manjumicha - 09:43pm Jan 5, 2003 EST (# 7385 of 7409)

gisterme

I am sorry to pop your pseduo left-right bubbles but many honest observers, yes even American ones, admit that as soon as the bargain was struck between Clinton and NKs, US hawks (both Dem and Repub) stalled the true implementation of the agreement by Clinton team, which would have led to the normalization of the relationship between US and NK as specifically stated in the formal agreement.

Of course, later on, when Bush & Co entered the stage, the whole thing went out the window with that famous axis of evil speech. Btw, NK never agreed to disarm....freeze their plutonium program, yes they did agree...but they never agreed to disarm, nuclear or otherwise, in the face of overt US nuclear threat.

And that would be the fact no matter how many times you or others repeat yourselves.....and no matter how distasteful NK regime might be to the outsiders.

(24 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense