New York Times Forums
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  / Resource Area for Forum Hosts and Moderators  /

    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 (10251 previous messages)

rshow55 - 07:21am Mar 20, 2003 EST (# 10252 of 17697)
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.

The Era of Preventive War http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/20/opinion/20THU1.html

The doctrine of preventive war offers carte blanche to use military might against hypothetical threats before all other avenues are exhausted.

Carte Blanche? That's an important question. I think preventative war may be necessary on occasion - and have said so repeatedly. But as a pattern of exception handling - within a workable system of international law.

The editorial raises very important concerns - and that is what editorials are supposed to do.

almarst2003 - 07:23am Mar 20, 2003 EST (# 10253 of 17697)

"but not necessarily to stop"

Why to stop? There is still so many nations waiting in line to be "liberated".

rshow55 - 07:26am Mar 20, 2003 EST (# 10254 of 17697)
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.

The Treaty of Westphalia has failed - and that is a question that has to be negotiated.

If Russia, China, and France hadn't, in effect, said "no war, ever" - which is just what they did - this war wouldn't be happening.

Now that it is - some serious people ought to think carefully about negotiating a workable international law into being.

almarst2003 - 07:32am Mar 20, 2003 EST (# 10255 of 17697)

"The Treaty of Westphalia has failed"

Even if true, does it mean any small nation is now up for grabs by the mighty?

rshow55 - 07:44am Mar 20, 2003 EST (# 10256 of 17697)
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.

It better not be as simple as that - and if Russia, China, and EU countries are at all careful - it won't be like that. But people - including leaders - and surely including Blair and Bush - have to be responsible for what they say and do - and there have to be some limits on the right to lie - that transcend borders.

Unless we can anchor discourse on some agreed upon facts - set out and reinforced according to the standards that work for human beings (that is, the standards actually needed in jury trials) there is no solution.

If the basic principle that the Treaty of Westphalia has failed is accepted - workable negotiations could begin immediately - and everything is in place for a very stable, much better set of arrangements.

4419 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.DDr1b0YuYGb.1129527@.f28e622/5584 includes a very wrenching quote for Goering - http://www.subvertise.org/details.php?code=453 that illustrates how utterly unstable conditions are under current rules. We have to do better.

When things are complicated, truth is our only hope: http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?8@@.ee7a163/296

And a substantial hope.

Almarst , Putin and others aren't dealing with Hitler - they're dealing with Bush and Blair who, faults and all - work hard for what they think is right. You may not like them. But if people have good sense, and negotiate decently - a lot could get much better.

Some old patterns, which have long paralyzed the world - are now broken. We need new patterns better patterns - and while they are being renegotiated there's reason to fear chaos.

But we can do much better than that.

lchic - 08:31am Mar 20, 2003 EST (# 10257 of 17697)
ultimately TRUTH outs : TRUTH has to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong foundation

People are out on the streets - around the world - protesting war ... as in, protesting the deaths of innocents.

International Law has to be revamped to enable early intervention when National Leaders abuse their roles by failing to respect their people and failing to act in the interest of ALL constituents.

1441 -- moral issues -- CONFUSION -- in the international-common-mind.

More Messages Recent Messages (7440 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search
 Your Preferences

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Resource Area for Forum Hosts and Moderators  / Missile Defense