New York Times Readers Opinions
The New York Times

Home
Job Market
Real Estate
Automobiles
News
International
National
Washington
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
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 (8869 previous messages)

rshow55 - 09:02am Feb 13, 2003 EST (# 8870 of 8871) 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.

I agree with much in the lead editorial today - but would point out some word choices:

Back to the United Nations http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/13/opinion/13THU1.html

"With Saddam Hussein stalling and the United States and its allies quarreling, the world seems to be lurching toward an endgame in which the United Nations dithers and the Bush administration goes to war against Iraq without broad international support. This is the worst possible scenario, one that would leave the U.N. weakened and the United States saddled with all the responsibility for rebuilding a post-Saddam Iraq.

"The Security Council already appears to be headed for another futile trans-Atlantic spat at its next meeting tomorrow. This gathering could be better used by the Council to pull itself together and approve a resolution setting a date for Iraq to comply with disarmament demands or face the likelihood of united military action.

Are the concerns being raised in NATO, and at the Security Council

i stalling ?

i dithering?

i weakening of international patterns of legitimacy?

i exercises in futility?

Are we dealing with a small spat ?

Or are we dealing with a situation where - if leaders of nation states take the time to figure out what they could be proud to do - we could all do much better - in ways fully consistent with every valid security need the United States and other countries involve have - that they can explain to themselves and others.

"When Dr. Rice wrote this, I believe she wrote something profound and hopeful.

" Today, the international community has the best chance since the rise of the nation-state in the seventeenth century to build a world where great powers compete in peace instead of continually prepare for war. . . . . . The United States will build on these common interests to promote global security. " " The National Security Strategy of the United States ," http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/20/politics/20STEXT_FULL.html . page 2.

The whole world hopes for that. But if hopes are to solidify into reality - we need to communicate effectively - - work enough things out between people and powers so that they know enough to compete in peace.

That takes a lot of talking - negotiation of a shared space - - communication good enough so that - when it matters for practical affairs intended meanings and percieved meanings match well enough to be safe.

A communication model http://www.worldtrans.org/TP/TP1/TP1-17.HTML

"For us to find that shared space - and maintain it - and know we have it -- - we need empathy.

And clarity. 8847 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.GdSwayWJ381.417202@.f28e622/10373

Right now, that means that some leaders of nation states should ask some questions - and insist on right answers.

Here's part of an undelivered speech by Franklin D. Roosevelt, written shortly before his death:

" Today, we are faced with the pre-eminent fact that, if civilization is to survive, we must cultivate the science of human relationships --- the ability of all peoples, of all kinds, to live together and work together in the same world, at peace."

This quote was on the last page of the American Heritage Picture History of World War II , by C.L. Sulzberger and the editors of American Heritage , published in 1966.

It has been a long time since WWII - and a long time since Vietnam.

Right now - what's needed is clarity - and ways to find shared space - not to dismiss the humanity and status of those who happen to disagree with the Bush administration. These days - it appears that most of the world, outside the US - does disagree with the Bush administration.

Communication is basic - and at the level of leadership - messages have to be clear.

Given the current situation - I wonder how the United States

More Messages Recent Messages (1 following message)

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