New York Times Readers Opinions
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  / Science  /

    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 (10803 previous messages)

almarst2003 - 06:22pm Mar 30, 2003 EST (# 10804 of 10812)

jorian,

What prevents you to raise a voice of wisdom rught here and now?

What is exactly you would like to share and discuss?

Don't be afraid. Go ahead. I can assure you, no one was ever hurt here, yet.

rshow55 - 06:30pm Mar 30, 2003 EST (# 10805 of 10812) Delete Message
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.

The NYT cares about this thread, or it would have closed long ago. The Bush administration does as well - neither gisterme's posting's nor jorian310's are happening by accident.

There are few participants, but serious ones.

Almarst , you asked why I was optimistic (though terribly concerned). The reason is, that if we can get some control on "the culture of lying" we can live in a much safer world.

http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?8@@.ee7b2bd/1705

One of the basic arguments for the existence of God - much used in the Middle Ages and now, and probably ageless, is that the Universe is Orderly, and so must have a maker.

Whether that's right or not - the universe is orderly.

10473 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.ar8Zay8K65p.2397156@.f28e622/12022

A reason things can be sorted out so often, on things that matter, is that basic patterns very often repeat again and again.

Fractals circumstances and SELF-SIMILARITY: http://math.bu.edu/DYSYS/chaos-game/node5.html

10330-10332 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.ar8Zay8K65p.2397156@.f28e622/11876

There's plenty to hope for, if we work at it - and if people get concerned enough to think straight - we can sort out a lot.

1536 http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7b2bd/1704

1537 http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7b2bd/1705 gives reasons why I keep working. If we can cut the incidence of lies - we can find degrees of orderliness that make the world much safer.

I'm doing just what I promised Bill Casey I would - and there is a good chance - if people check that a lot can get a lot better.

rshow55 - 06:45pm Mar 30, 2003 EST (# 10806 of 10812) Delete Message
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.

Almarst , you could be wrong when you say that

"no one was ever hurt here, yet."

Postings like 10766 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.ar8Zay8K65p.2397156@.f28e622/12316 , if they were checked, could "hurt" the Bush administration.

If it "hurt" them enough - they might do the job reasonable people expect them to do.

jorian319 - 06:57pm Mar 30, 2003 EST (# 10807 of 10812)

TOO MUCH OF A "GOOD" THING?

We are effecting discourse.

Says Rshow.

Unfortunately that discourse consists of three people (assuming no sockpuppets), whos posts comprise over 90% of this forum.

I doubt if one lurker a month reads more than one post total, after clicking on "missile defense" and seeing not a word about it, just a running sermon by Rshowalarmstchick. Most of Rshow's posts consist of epic lists of links to other Rshow posts and Rshow's site - sheesh! Effecting discourse? If you think so, I think it's effecting YOU. Which of course, is to be applauded.

almarst2003 - 06:59pm Mar 30, 2003 EST (# 10808 of 10812)

Robert - "the culture of lying"

This is just a symptom, a servant, a tool.

The questions are:

WHAT IS THE PURPOSE?

WHO BENEFITS?

WHY IT IS SO SUCCESSFULL AND PERVASIVE IN A COUNTRY OF A SUPPOSEDLY FREE MEDIA?

Then, may be, there will be an answer to this one:

WHY ITS SO EASY TO "SELL" THE WAR HERE IN US?

More Messages Recent Messages (4 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Your Preferences

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  / Missile Defense





Home | Back to Readers' Opinions Back to Top


Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company | Privacy Policy | Contact Us