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 (15314 previous messages)

rshow55 - 05:31am Oct 21, 2003 EST (# 15315 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.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/21/opinion/21TUE1.html also includes this: "Blackmail is a fair description of North Korea's behavior."

From other perspectives there could be other "fair descriptions." Other groups - including the North Koreans - might find other words besides "blackmail" fair. A great deal of negotiation - including negotiation that everybody approves of - involves compromise in the presence of mutual threats - on issues involving both status and money.

Here's a fact - a fact that isn't so important to know if explosive fighting without end is the objective - but a fact that is important to know if stable resolutions that pass reasonable tests of fairness are to be achieved.

For stable end games - people and groups have to be workably clear on these key questions.

How do they disagree (agree) about logical structure ?

How do they disagree (agree) about facts ?

How do they disagree (agree) about questions of how much different things matter ?

How do they differ in their team identifications ?

Odds are good that if the patterns of agreement (or disagreement) are STABLE and KNOWN they can be decently accomodated. Though it isn't easy to find those accomodations. But if these patterns of agreement or disagreement are NOT known - then situations that involve disagreements are inherently unstable.

We need to Iearn how to agree to disagree clearly, without fighting, comfortably, so that they can cooperate stably, safely, and productively - and when it matters enough, we need to learn how to agree about facts. Even when we happen to hate each other - even when we have reasons to hate each other. It is easy to use words as weapons to keep that from happening.

I believe that this thread is now, and has been for a while, the largest interconnected corpus devoted to negotiation practices in the world - or at least one of very few. It includes some probably distinguished, if anonymous, posters. http://www.mrshowalter.net/Sequential.htm I'm hopeful that the work it represents will be worthwhile - in the public interest, and from the viewpoint of The New York Times

I've done a great deal of work on this thread, with lchic , since Sept 25, 2000 - some summarize from 9003-9 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.qCcEbryuYiH.0@.f28e622/10529

The part of this thread prior to March 1, 2002 is archived - and available at http://www.mrshowalter.net/ by number or date http://www.mrshowalter.net/calendar1.htm

I think readers may be interested in http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md8000s/md8298.htm , which summarizes practical problems as they appeared ten days before 9/11

At that time, I thought a great deal had been accomplished, and more could be. There was so much effort - on this thread and elsewhere, that hope seemed reasonable, along with plenty of concern.

The world changed with on 9/11/2000. Here's the Front Page of NYT on the Web - September 12, 2001 - http://www.mrshowalter.net/NYTWebFrontPage_9_11_02.htm

This thread was set up about Missile Defense - but it has evolved to involve more, with plenty of assistance from the NYT. This thread has been based on the "fiction" that staffed organizations were looking at it - and has prototyped patterns that staffed organizations could use. Sometimes I've hoped some staffs have looked at it.

More Messages Recent Messages (2382 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