The New York Times: Readers' Opinions
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
Tips Go to Advanced Search
Search Optionsdivide
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 (7451 previous messages)

lunarchick - 09:03am Jan 7, 2003 EST (# 7452 of 7453)

Headers for Reith Lectures

Lecture 1: Spreading Suspicion

Lecture 2: Trust and Terror

Lecture 3: Called to Account

Lecture 4: Trust and Transparency

Lecture 5: Licence to Deceive

rshow55 - 09:47am Jan 7, 2003 EST (# 7453 of 7453) 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.

Haven't read a lot of this. But I think SCIENCE TIMES is beautiful - things are going well - and I'm doing the best I can. Which I think is very well. I'm being careful, and I can see that some other people are too. Some are backwards. Sometimes, that pleases me.

Some things are clear - - even when some other things can't be checked.

For example. This thread isn't an accident. And some of the people posting on it are smart, and working hard, and concerned about some important things.

If anybody thinks I'm lying - and wants to look at the places where lying is most to be suspected - look where my postings are slow . Lies, in systems that have to be stable, and converge, take a long time.

I've been working through some scenarios - all that are lies, and truths, at alternating levels. Parables.

I am clinically sure that the incidence of death and agony from war can be taken down very much from where it now is - and the risks can be taken down - but people have to be careful to know the differences between what convergent sequences and divergent sequences look like.

I'm being careful - and slow for very good, honest reasons - and some of the standard reasons. I'm trying to fashion some parables that are primordial, clear to every reasonable human adult - clean, and just. In areas where sex, lying, fighting, and death are very much involved.

Before I do, I'll take care of some things, and read what's gone on the board since the last time I posted - read it for the first time.

 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' OpinionsBack to Top


Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company | Privacy Policy | Contact Us