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.

rshow55 - 06:56am Sep 29, 2003 EST (# 14114 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.

I'm not so poetic - but here's a similar point.

I get tired and discouraged, like a lot of people. Not as exhausted as good kindergarten teachers get. But sometimes I get a real warm, hopeful feeling - that something is ready to be learned.

I got that warm, fuzzy feeling when jorian 319 posted 13678 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.RErUbPHeYTe.1146936@.f28e622/15371 - which expressed ideas I hoped jorian319 was ready to set out clearly . .

"Wow. A list of things and people rshowalter doesn't believe will certainly go a long way toward solving the problems of the world.

"Maybe I can help. I don't believe Showalter ever worked with Eisenhower, I don't believe Showalter takes his own professed advice about "checking" . . . I don't believe anyone in any kind of position of power EVER reads this forum . . .

Gee, this is fun - impugning the motives of people I don't know, even as I solve the world's problems! </sarcasm>

I immediately responded "fair enough" - and posted some stuff that still makes sense to me - building up to 13693 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.RErUbPHeYTe.1146936@.f28e622/15386 but it was 13694 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.RErUbPHeYTe.1146936@.f28e622/15387 before I made a more detailed response to Jorian319's wonderfully perceptive 13678 posting:

Jorian - if we had mutually compelling reasons to cooperate on specific things - we ought to be able to do so, without fighting - without ageeing on any more than we do now - if we're clear - and the rules were clear.

It might be worthwhile to sort some disagreements out - and maybe change them to agreements - in spots. But there are costs of doing so, and costs of not doing so.

We don't have to fight - unless one of us really wants to.

- - -

How often do people have to fight? How many people really want to ? How many people, these days, know how to avoid fighting when they don't agree about everything they talk about?

A lot of kids in kindergarten already know a good deal about how to avoid fights. When details matter - and emotions run high - we might learn a little more. I think a lot of key stuff - that is obvious and old, but could stand some emphasis, was set out in 13693 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.RErUbPHeYTe.1146936@.f28e622/15386

I think those points are essential if the hopes of Friedman's The Lexus and the Olive Tree are to become practical in the areas where they are now going wrong.

lchic - 07:53am Sep 29, 2003 EST (# 14115 of 17697)
ultimately TRUTH outs : TRUTH has to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong foundation

Stench in the Trench - easy to fall into, hard to get out of

the futility of war

http://www.firstworldwar.com/features/trenchlife.htm

(3582 following messages)

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