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 - 11:20am Feb 9, 2003 EST (# 8742 of 8747)
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 was interested in Vote France Off the Island By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/09/opinion/09FRIE.html

"Today's world is . . . . increasingly divided between the "World of Order" — anchored by America, the E.U., Russia, India, China and Japan, and joined by scores of smaller nations — and the "World of Disorder." The World of Disorder is dominated by rogue regimes like Iraq's and North Korea's and the various global terrorist networks that feed off the troubled string of states stretching from the Middle East to Indonesia.

"How the World of Order deals with the World of Disorder is the key question of the day. There is room for disagreement. There is no room for a lack of seriousness.

. . .

I also want to avoid a war — but not by letting Saddam off the hook, which would undermine the U.N., set back the winds of change in the Arab world and strengthen the World of Disorder. The only possible way to coerce Saddam into compliance — without a war — is for the whole world to line up shoulder-to-shoulder against his misbehavior, without any gaps.

and also in Desert Spring, Sprung By MAUREEN DOWD http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/09/opinion/09DOWD.html

The Bush team is infatuated with solving old problems . . in a bold new way.

Order is important. But it is important to ask - order for what? According to what priorities, assumptions, and balances? In the service of what?

People are asking.

As A President Puts His Faith in Providence By LAURIE GOODSTEIN http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/09/weekinreview/09GOOD.html it may be providential that a lot of careful questions are being asked - and concerns are being raised, by political leaders, by ordinary people, and by some religoius leaders, as well

"some ministers and theologians object to the president's references to God, and to good and evil, in speeches justifying war with Iraq.

""He has brought God in in handcuffs," said the Rev. James A. Forbes Jr., the liberal senior pastor of Riverside Church in New York. "This war is not coming from the council of heaven, it is coming from a council on earth that has not checked with God about their deeper motivations."

"Elaine Pagels, a professor of religion at Princeton University, said she had no interest in whether the president's religious language is genuine or politically manipulative.

""What interests me is the effect," she said. "Religious language can be unifying. It can also be enormously divisive and dangerous. If there is an axis of evil, that obviously places him in the axis of good, and also means that anyone who disagrees with the policies he is advocating is placed on the other side."

Judgement matters - 8678-8679 <a href="/webin/WebX?14@93.8YDvaZVC2DR.1583986@.f28e622/10204">rshow55 2/7/03 4:35pm</a> include some links to WHEN THE FOUNDATIONS ARE SHAKING by James Slatton http://www.mrshowalter.net/sermon.html cited on this thread over the years.

Even with good intentions - - disasters can occur if people are sure of themselves - actively push what they believe - and are wrong. Nor can good intentions - both conscious and unconscious, always be assumed - especially when deeper motivations are considered. The Enron mess involved plenty of bad intentions - but some "well intended actions" (at least at the conscious level) may have been among the most destructive. Company Man to the End, After All By KURT EICHENWALD http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/09/business/yourmoney/09LAYY.html

rshow55 - 11:20am Feb 9, 2003 EST (# 8743 of 8747)
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.

http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7b2bd/1636 makes an essential point:

" People say and do things. .

" What people say and do have consequences, for themselves and for other people. .

" People need to deal with and understand these consequences, for all sorts of practical, down to earth reasons. .

" So everybody has a stake in right answers on questions of fact that they have to use as assumptions for what they say and do.

It is a good thing that the nations in NATO and in the UN are paying attention.

(4 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense