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 (5407 previous messages)

rshow55 - 12:19pm Oct 31, 2002 EST (# 5408 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.

manjumicha 10/31/02 12:05pm

The amount of progress , and the human costs, depend on how well decisions are made.

People muddle through - and they make a lot of smart decisions - and these do tend to add up.

But if there are big mistakes - and they are recognized - there are new opportunities!

And "negative progress" isn't unthinkable either. Big disasters have happened before.

Now, the worst that could happen technically is a lot worse than ever before - - the world could end.

Now, there's more ugliness and agony in the world than anyone could possibly look at or face - - and a huge anount of good, too.

Things could be worse.

But if we do things right - a lot of things could get much better.

I did a "briefing" on this thread for our "Putin stand-in", almarst that deals with a lot of reasons why reliability and right answers matter. http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7b085/383

lchic - 01:21pm Oct 31, 2002 EST (# 5409 of 17697)
ultimately TRUTH outs : TRUTH has to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong foundation

The Poster - Past

lchic - 12:43pm Oct 31, 2002 EST (# 5410 of 17697)
ultimately TRUTH outs : TRUTH has to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong foundation

manjumicha

    'The Poster' uses various monikers ....
    Looking below the Labels .....
    Maybe he works for the CIA -

    Maybe he works for the BushAdmin

    His philosophy maybe Nihilism

    He sees his task as 'muddying the waters'
    Tries to ensure that nothing gets to closure
    Puts forward, maybe, the odd question on behalf of 'The Shadow'
    Maybe paid a retainer to work for them
    Maybe he does/doesn't understand basics of science
    Maybe he's re-writing TheBookofEtiquette
    Maybe he has a role and function on MD thread
    Maybe his HOBgoblin outbursts are to be ignored
The Reader'sOpinion|Science|MD thread is a worldwide open forum ... open to all who wish to post .... there are SixBillion folks out there many with access - if they want to post here - they can

lchic - 12:57pm Oct 31, 2002 EST (# 5411 of 17697)
ultimately TRUTH outs : TRUTH has to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong foundation

manjumicha

Showalter's role here (which I support) maybe to

    offer tools for those implementing strategic policy that re-align thinking towards an improved environment for humanity
    and limit unnecessary wastage of human life
    and show how known technologies can give those in lowest world-geographic income zones improved outcomes
    and how the world's major unmet problems can be addressed to give a safer world
That HALF the USA Federal budget goes towards military expenditure (some dangerous missiles) is a problem to think on

Were this resource to move from fight to 'life' then that investment could resourse a clean-up of major environmental problems

The world could start to 'function' not 'fight' and living in peace folks everywhere could optimise their life chances at each point within the Maslow model

The 'stopper' that prohibits progress may relate to the pulls, commisions and underTheTable dealings that can be had via the utilisation of the non-too-closely audited 50% of USA Federal expenditure

lchic - 01:03pm Oct 31, 2002 EST (# 5412 of 17697)
ultimately TRUTH outs : TRUTH has to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong foundation

HALF a BILLION DOLLARS per USA Parliamentarian goes to 'Defense'

How closely do they audit and monitor that allocation

If the top 1% avoid taxes

Then the lower income earners deliver
As in, sweat, to make tax payments

COULD their contributions be used for causes, more important to USA and World society, than 'killing' and maiming with impunity!

More Messages Recent Messages (12285 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