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 - 08:58am Feb 11, 2003 EST (# 8811 of 8816)
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.

6999-7003 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@93.a229aP3zYzn^397117@.f28e622/8521

I am doing my best to play my part in "Wizard's Chess" http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/05/opinion/05SUN1.html

Right now the world must seem like a potentially deadly game of three-dimensional chess to the the Bush administration. . . . .

America now faces a national security challenge of extraordinary complexity. Washington must simultaneously cope with three separate and potentially grave threats — from Iraq, from North Korea and from the threat of reconstituted international terrorist networks. It is absolutely essential that appropriate priorities be set.

Right now, if leader face their problems - and insist that key issues be checked to closure we're in a situation where the key problems in the world can be resolved well - in the interest of all mankind - and in ways that are distinctly in the interest of the United States of America as a nation.

The Koreans should insist on getting facts - and reasonable human responsibilities straight. So should the NATO countries.

President Bush may be as good a man as Ronald Dittmore. But Dittmore is capable of misjudgements, and mistakes, as are we all. He is not enough better to be trusted unconditionally. Checking - finding right answers - would be relatively easy to do in terms of money and time - and the costs of not doing so are vastly greater.

This is a hopeful time, if responsible people take the time to do some easy, inexpensive homework - and hesitate to kill without fully considered reasons. .

rshow55 - 12:51pm Feb 11, 2003 EST (# 8812 of 8816)
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.

NATO Delays a Meeting on Iraq, but Informal Talks Go On By RICHARD BERNSTEIN with CRAIG S. SMITH http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/11/international/middleeast/12cnd-iraq.html

BRUSSELS, Feb. 11 — NATO today delayed the opening of a meeting here intended to try to resolve its differences over Iraq, leaving the problem for the moment to informal diplomacy among its members.

" Ambassadors from the military alliance's 19 nations were gathering for their third meeting in a little over 24 hours when NATO's secretary general, Lord Robertson, decided to call it off.

Things are complicated - intractably complicated until some fact checking gets some key things focused.

When things are complicated, truth is our only hope: http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/296

Truth is a substantial hope.

I think that if staffs of the nation states in NATO looked carefully at http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/296 , and sections following in Psychwar, Casablanca . . . . and terror - - and thought about what would make them PROUD - as representatives of their nations, and as human beings - a great deal would sort out.

http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/296 includes discussion of how the key questions of fact about missile defense could be checked to closure - something that current procedure militates against.

http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.555AaR092pS.121627@.f28e622/5041 includes more discussion of the point, and includes this:

The weakness of truth - and the presentation of it has been a key concern at the TIMES for a long time - often with the highest possible stakes Turning Away for the Holocaust by Max Frankel http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/14/specials/onefifty/20FRAN.html . . and stakes are high now.

If leaders and staffs of NATO countries face their problems -and make decisions that they will be proud to explain to the people they care about, and have to care about - every reasonable need of US security, and word security - can be improved step by step.

One useful step - easy for staffs - would be to look at gisterme's postings - and see what they have to show about the logic of situations that might be improved. Those links (more than 1000) can be accessed via out in http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/407 .

I may be wrong about who gisterme is - but he knows some things about the Bush administration - and his postings, whatever you may think about them in detail, didn't happen by accident.

If leaders of other nation states worked as hard as gisterme does - we'd be likely to make a lot of progress.

I am doing my best to play my part in " Wizard's Chess " http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/05/opinion/05SUN1.html . Most of the time - the most important things - once you've done enough work to see them - are obvious - and fit the needs of the situation beautifully.

Edison thought so.

(4 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense