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.

rshow55 - 09:29am Apr 4, 2003 EST (# 11053 of 11055)
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.

If you handle the matter automatically and unconsciously - as people handle most things in their heads, and must - mistakes, including emotionally wrenching mistakes - are part of the human condition.

313 http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@138.SCCbcNceBno^1@.ee7726f/367

314 http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@138.SCCbcNceBno^1@.ee7726f/368

Some other references to paradigm conflict problems - which are a barrier to peaceful resolutions, workable resolutions - are set out in 116 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.KuQrabPe6ki.416105@.f28e622/137

I think lchic and I have reason to be proud of the intellectual achievements linked in 116. Some might be interested in the dates involved.

I believe that there is a good chance that we can get good answers to the problems set out in Wizard's Chess http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/05/opinion/05SUN1.html

America now faces a national security challenge of extraordinary complexity. Washington must simultaneously cope with three separate and potentially grave threats — from Iraq, from North Korea and from the threat of reconstituted international terrorist networks.

To do that, and to deal with the problems the rest of the world has with us, and we with them, we have to do a better job of "connecting the dots" than we've done - and insist that others do so as well, in ways that work. I think that's possible.

But for progress to be possible - some key facts and relations have to be faced. While that process is going on - when the adjustments are difficult are important - there are feelings and signs of crisis. That means this is a dangerous but potentially very healthy time.

Here's a basic political fact. The Treaty of Westphalia was a long time ago. We want those old standards - yet we don't. Some reorganizing, and some exception handling, is overdue.

rshow55 - 09:45am Apr 4, 2003 EST (# 11054 of 11055)
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.

Sometimes there has to be a fight.

Either at the level of ideas, or physically, with rending of flesh.

There are some basic facts that have to be settled. Not always. Not usually, perhaps. But sometimes.

Muddle - the avoidance of conflict - is often the way to go - when the costs of muddle are acceptable.

But sometimes, to avoid bigger and more expensive conflict - to avoid situations that are hopeless, some confrontation may be necessary.

http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.KuQrabPe6ki.416105@.f28e622/12574

If people ask what it is they are thinking of when they use words or take actions, and try to get clear about that - we might be able to do better than we'll do otherwise. What fits?

Almarst and many other people have problems with Friedman, and sometimes for reasons that I can sympathize with, but sometimes Friedman does point out things worth noticing. He did in his August 18, 2002 piece Fog of War http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/18/opinion/18FRIE.html?ei=5070&en=ce3476fe1e5ea656&ex=1049432400&pagewanted=print&position=top

"A remarkable news article from Gaza appeared in The Washington Post last week, and it deserved more attention than it got. The article reported that for the past month, the 12 main Palestinian factions had been holding secret talks to determine the "ground rules for their uprising against Israel, trying to agree on such fundamental issues as why they are fighting, what they need to end the conflict and whether suicide bombings are a legitimate weapon."

"Let me repeat that in case you missed it: two years into the Palestinian uprising, Palestinian factions were meeting to determine why they are fighting and whether their means are legitimate.

. . . .

. . . "the Arab and European "friends" of the Palestinians, instead of confronting them on this issue, became their apologists and enablers, telling us why the Palestinians' "desperation" had led them to suicide bombing. It was their enabling that helped produce this situation where the Palestinians, two years into a disastrous war, are meeting to decide what it is about."

It seems to me that the logic of some situations, when consequences matter, ought to be clear - clear enough that I don't think any imaginable god could change it.

Sometimes, when muddle is serious enough - people need to "get their house in order."

There are plainly some things wrong with the United States - and lchic and I have joined with almarst in pointing many of them out. But some other peoples, nations, and groups need to change, as well. And different groups can be right and wrong about different things.

What fits?

- -

The Islamic world has some adjustments it needs to make - and should figure out ways to do so workably, and gracefully.

Just now, the regime of Saddam Hussien, which all decent followers of Islam should be ashamed of - is falling. An orderly, complete surrender is called for. If Islamic leaders care at all about Islam - they should be for that.

(1 following message)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense