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 - 12:57pm Sep 22, 2003 EST (# 13843 of 13847)
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.

Cantabb http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.gUAmbPlIH6i.1117660@.f28e622/15535 , I really do hope to reply to you, if I can get around it - but it does seem clear that you and I disagree about what fairness is. What balance is. What matters in context. We have different priorities.

I'm struck by the interesting things some other posters say somewhat more than by your postings since 13963 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.gUAmbPlIH6i.1117660@.f28e622/15386 - just now. I was struck by posts by gisterme , who I believe is an important person - a person, cantabb , who seems more important ( to me ) than you are.

( By the way, 13963 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.gUAmbPlIH6i.1117660@.f28e622/15386 contains this:

There's an unsolved problem in the world about end games - and it is a big problem. ( examples ) . . .

n For stable end games - people and groups have to be workably clear on these key questions. Especially if win-win outcomes are to be possible. The questions are basic.

How do they disagree (agree) about logical structure ?

How do they disagree (agree) about facts ?

How do they disagree (agree) about questions of how much different things matter ?

How do they differ in their team identifications ?

Odds are good that if the patterns of agreement (or disagreement) are STABLE and KNOWN they can be decently accomodated.

Cantabb - according to your patterns - explicit and implicit - how can any of those key questions be worked out to clarity?

You say that it is cheating - that it is unfair to do that things necessary to do so.

That's not a rare stance - but it does seem to me (and I repeat this because I think it is important) that your approach - which is a common one - is guaranteed to produce divergence - not convergence - and, in the name of "social rules" and "fairness" can produce strikingly ugly and anti-social results. Are you largely motivated by hatred, and fear of change, or am I missing something?

There seems to be a great urge to punish cheats in your postings - http://www.mrshowalter.net/UrgeToPunishCheatsNotJustHumanButSelfless.htm - - but I wonder how social - or anti social - the consequences of your anger are - as they appy to me and this thread.

(4 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense