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  / 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 (13836 previous messages)

rshow55 - 10:56am Sep 22, 2003 EST (# 13837 of 13840)
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.

Great, Fredmoore !

This quote was on the last page of the American Heritage Picture History of World War II , by C.L. Sulzberger and the editors of American Heritage , published in 1966.

It is from an undelivered speech by Franklin D. Roosevelt, written shortly before his death.

" Today, we are faced with the pre-eminent fact that, if civilization is to survive, we must cultivate the science of human relationships --- the ability of all peoples, of all kinds, to live together and work together in the same world, at peace. "

I've repeated that quote a number of times, including these early in 2002. 13461-2 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.YSVZbYrmHo2.1088467@.f28e622/15152

Great postings since I went away - I'm reviewing them. A lot of hard work by gisterme - and a LOT of discussion about what cheating is - - and what fairness is.

Is change cheating ?

You can always find someone to say "yes."

Almost always, you can find people with power saying "yes."

Sometimes rightly. Not always, by any means.

Arguments that human beings have - between themselves - and inside their own heads - are "circular" - usually. Very often - workable answers converge.

Without some "going round and round" - they usually can't converge to any satisfactory result. Once you have a result converged - it can often be taught. If some simple things were understood and actually learned - we'd all be much safer, and more prosperous, too. The back and forth of this thread shows most of the ways that convergence to understanding actually happens - for real people.

- - -

GWB is actually going to the UN and talking to people. That's important.

I'm working. A lot of postings since 13693 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.YSVZbYrmHo2.1088467@.f28e622/15386 - including some very good ones by gisterme .

We have to worry about "end games" that are stable - and do well for human beings. That means we have to worry about "cheating" and "fairness" in ways that actually work for the people and groups involved - in ways that can actually be explained.

If things go wrong - the world could easily end. Expressed willingness to go to an exterminatory nuclear war - might lead to actual nuclear exchanges.

Containing those exchanges would be hard - putting the matter gently.

Even exchanges on something like this board often tend to explode - often in ways people didn't intend.

I'm not working to be an arsonist - any more than jorian319 is - and I expect that, dispite his comment, gisterme knows it. I know that I'm working to be a fireman - and to teach people to break chains - when that's what's wanted for good reasons - and let chains propagate - when that's the thing that makes sense. Chain Breakers http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee79f4e/618 http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md4000s/md4125.htm

We need to work things out - http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?13@@.ee79f4e/619

I appreciate this thread.

cantabb - 11:03am Sep 22, 2003 EST (# 13838 of 13840)

One of the ways to express one's appreciation for this thread would be to post on-topic, without the endlesslessly repetitious, unfocused ramblings.

More Messages Recent Messages (2 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Your Preferences

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