New York Times on the Web Forums
Resource
Area for Forum Hosts and Moderators
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.
(4699 previous messages)
rshow55
- 05:51pm Oct 1, 2002 EST (#
4700 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 think this is real progress:
Iraq and U.N. Agree on Access for Weapons Inspectors
By MARK LANDLER http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/01/international/01CND-INSP.html
and some other people do, too:
Dow Gains 4.6% as Stocks Start New Quarter With a
Comeback By REUTERS http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/business/business-markets-stocks.html
Stocks rallied today as a deal between Iraq
and the U.N. took the edge off war fears and helped lure
investors back into the ravaged market.
. . . . . . .
From right now - looking at the future - one can imagine
some very happy endings ( how a story is shaped, here ) - - -
where people can live more happily, and more safely - - ever
after. But in the real world, better endings will
require some changes.
Getting clear on missile defense is part of what needs to
be done - but only a part. I wonder (though he wouldn't talk
to me) what Annan might want done?
What would Putin want done? What would the leaders of the
nations in NATO, and the other nations in the Security Council
want done? What would ex-presidents of the United States,
living and dead, want done, if they could think about the
issues involved? What would the pre-injury Nash want done?
What would "the average reader of the New York Times"
want done?
What would Casey want done (or forgive me for) ?
I've been working full time on this thread since Sept. 25,
2000, and on March 4, 2001, the Science/Health Forums Host
said this:
rshowalter, I admire your prolific posts,
but you might want to take a breather until we get some
fresh blood in here...
I responded Yes sir ! and then almarst
appeared, with this very important post:
almarstel2001 - 12:17am Mar 5, 2001 EST (#829
" As I see it, the US military wants the
NMD out of frustration and fear to face the situation, when
its tremendous adwantage in power will be useless against
anyone who posesses even a single nuclear missle capable to
reach the US and who may be ready to commit suiside in case
of aggression. Practically that would mean the end of
American's ability to dictate and rule by force. Imagine -
no more bombings of Iraq, libia, Serbia! For the country
which spends about 300 bi/year - 30% of its budget on
military, more then 10 next military spenders combined, this
is a real nightmere.
" "Unfortunatly", that is going to be a
reality, sooner or later. The more US will push for world's
domination - the sooner. And no NMD will save it for at
least the following two reasons:
" 1 - No NMD will ever quarantee 100%
success, which will the "domination" wars too risky for
US.
" 2 - The offensive means, capable to
overcome the defence, are usually much less expensive and
simpler to produce.
" However, the current state of affairs
already caused tremendous damage to US bu showing its
willingness to ignore its pledges and signed laws.
" Who would trust the dishonest arrogant
and brutal superpower bully run amok?
- - - - -
At that time, I was afraid that there was no contact at
all, at the level of sympathy, between the US and Russia.
I think there's been a great deal of progress since then
MD1999 rshow55
5/4/02 10:39am - - but we've fallen short of hopes for
real peace - after a lot of work from lchic ,
almarst and gisterme as well.
rshow55
- 05:52pm Oct 1, 2002 EST (#
4701 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.
Groups of people go forward, on the basis of assumptions
that are, based on knowledge available, entirely reasonable.
But a time comes when the assumptions can be shown, beyond
reasonable doubt, to be wrong in some decisive way. If people
see no way to stop the work and the patterns they've been
engaged in, they ignore the fact that they are no longer
acting reasonably, and ignore the problem. I believe that, in
the history of the nuclear terror, and in history since the
Cold War should have ended, misakes such as
this, which are only human, have been, nonetheless, very
expensive.
I think some things are going very well.
Even so, it seems to me that it is becoming crucial
that we sort some things out.
What a wonderful idea it is that nations should "beat
their swords into plowshares" ! Wonderful ideas, backed
only by idealism, don't prevail. Perhaps my duty now is to see
that the swords in question become obsolete ?
http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/165
http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/166
http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/168
328 http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/350
The US is making some very bad bets - and some trillion
dollar procurement errors.
Again: Perhaps my duty now is to see that the swords in
question become obsolete ?
Anybody object? I'm in the Madison phone book.
rshowalter
"Science News Poetry" 2/10/01 2:05am
(12996 following messages)
New York Times on the Web Forums
Resource
Area for Forum Hosts and Moderators Missile Defense
|