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 (10290 previous messages)

rshow55 - 07:27am Mar 21, 2003 EST (# 10291 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.

There are unintended consequences - often mixed with intended consequences - and I'm feeling hopeful. I think Almarst is making fine, important points in a well focused fashion, and Gisterme is, as well. ( For the record: Just now, I don't take back a single negative thing I've ever said about Gisterme . )

This thread includes some fine writing - and fredmoore's 9426 of Mar 3, 2003 seems worth reposting. Fredmoore's story involves consequences, and coupled effects. Willy Hoppe, the great billiards artist, would have appreciated the story. http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.DDr1b0YuYGb.1129834@.f28e622/10965

I think Bush is doing some things, tactically and strategically - that make practical and moral sense - but I surely have an unusual perspective. When I was a kiddie, I got into more than 100 fights - more than 20 of which involved people threatening me with knives- when they had cutlery, and I didn't. I wasn't a very good diplomat, or I wouldn't have been so agressive - but even so, I didn't see very many alternatives that I, as I was, could get to work. I learned a great deal about pre-emption - its uses and limits at that time - and have done a lot of thinking about it since - some at Bill Casey's direction. Bush seems to know some key things about the uses and limits of pre-emption. Enough, I hope - and just now it looks like he does know enough.

Sometimes I've written poems to try to make simple points - and lchic collected some at 2599 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.DDr1b0YuYGb.1129834@.f28e622/3237

Chain Breakers http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee79f4e/618

In Clear rshowalter "Science News Poetry" 2/14/01 7:18am http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.DDr1b0YuYGb.1129834@.f1983fb/409

Learning to Stand http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee79f4e/1345

Secular Redemption http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee79f4e/1345

Especially Secular Redemption http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee79f4e/1345

We need to lie less - to send in clear more often - especially when it matters. And be more matter-of-fact at spotting deceptions, too. That's all we'd need to do a great deal better than we're doing - we have a mess - not beyond redemption - but redemption is what is needed. Facing up to what has happened, and what's been done, is what people need to do. Some key people may actually be so upset that they're forced to think straight - with less deception and self deception than usual, and more checking.

A lot of people who have backed Saddam, and said "no war - ever - under any circumstances" - ought to think hard about consequences.

I think things are going very well so far.

There's a good chance that we can take the incidence of agony and death from war way down from where it has been - and do it soon.

rshow55 - 08:59am Mar 21, 2003 EST (# 10292 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.

Here's a fascinating story. It says a lot about power - predictability - and the stability of deals under circumstances that are intolerably messy and compromised.

Turkey Delays Opening Airspace to U.S. By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Filed at 7:50 a.m. ET http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Turkey-US-Iraq.html

I hope the war can be won, and it won, cleanly, without making any unreasonable compromises whatsoever with the Turks - and certainly without betraying the interests of the Kurds.

I worked very hard on these postings, and I'm proud of them: 10274 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.DDr1b0YuYGb.1129834@.f28e622/11820 to 10276 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.DDr1b0YuYGb.1129834@.f28e622/11822

In 10275-10276 there's this:

Things sort themselves out into levels - the image in Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs by William G. Huitt Essay and Image : http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/regsys/maslow.html is a clear, important, and general example of a heirarchical system with controls and interfaces of mutual constraint. The generally pyramidal organization is general to essentially all such structures that work.

Look at the picture.

In ordinary business, politics and war there are times when groups that function as assemblies have to be dealt with as they are grouped - as assemblies. People have to act from where they are. If you're near the top of the pyramid in a logical sense, that's what you have to do.

You're Bush - or Putin - or any other leader - or a responsible subordinate - like Casey. You have to make decisions - and there are times when there is no option at all but to "play God" - either by actions with consequences - or by inaction under circumstances where inaction also has consequences.

People can only do as well as they possibly can - with mistakes expected, insensitivities expected, biases expected, even for the best of people because they are people.

But people have to be responsible for what they do - in every way - both because they control events, and because they don't.

More Messages Recent Messages (7405 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