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.

lchic - 12:16am Jul 23, 2002 EST (#3224 of 3339)

UK ? problems with the Chinook's software ?

"" There was at least a possibility of a technical malfunction, he said.

Sir Malcolm pointed out that to arrive at a guilty verdict, the air marshals had to prove that there was "absolutely no doubt whatsover" the pilots were at fault. The MoD was judge and jury in its own case and a court of law would have thrown out the case in matter of minutes.

In a withering attack, Sir Malcolm accused defence ministers of "sheer stubbornness". He described the government's response as a "miserable and pathetic" decision.

John Cook, father of one of the pilots, described the ministry's stance as "absolutely pathetic". He added: "No one knows whether the aircraft was serviceable or not."

lchic - 12:27am Jul 23, 2002 EST (#3225 of 3339)

Empire - Policy - unnecessary deaths

"" ... But while a Black Book of Communism has been compiled and everybody is aware of the horrors of nazism, popular historians have been surprisingly uninterested in the dark side of the British Empire. There are exceptions, such as Mike Davis's powerful Late Victorian Holocausts, but much else still lies buried in the academic literature. Davis and others have estimated that there were between 12 and 33 million avoidable deaths by famine in India between 1876 and 1908, produced by a deadly combination of official callousness and free-market ideology. But these were far from being a purely Victorian phenomenon. As late as 1943 around 4 million died in the Bengal famine, largely because of official policy.

The point of cataloguing Britain's imperial crimes is not to trash our forebears, but to remind our rulers that even the best-run empires are cruel and violent, not just the Belgian Congo. Overwhelming power, combined with a sense of boundless superiority, will produce atrocities - even among the well intentioned. Let's not forget that Leopold's central African empire was originally called the International Association for Philanthropy in the Congo. http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,761626,00.html

lchic - 12:42am Jul 23, 2002 EST (#3226 of 3339)

Business & Markets http://www.economist.com/

lchic - 12:55am Jul 23, 2002 EST (#3227 of 3339)

B R A I N - his hers

If the male brain is less sensitive (emotional recall) than the female's ... then more females should be involved in 'human decision making processes' http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_medical/story.jsp?story=317482

lchic - 12:59am Jul 23, 2002 EST (#3228 of 3339)

Fisk - pakistan intelligence services http://www.independent.co.uk/search.jsp?keywords=fisk

Middle East http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/

kalter.rauch - 02:11am Jul 23, 2002 EST (#3229 of 3339)
Earth vs <^> <^> <^>

mazza9 7/22/02 11:36am

[shuffling...hanging my head...]

I presume lchic 7/22/02 5:26am means I'm "intellectually challenged" since her ally, Rshowalt is the "other poster" she cited. It wouldn't surprise me if she STILL hasn't clicked on my link, no doubt fearing it's a diabolical imperialist trojan horse.

kalter.rauch - 02:31am Jul 23, 2002 EST (#3230 of 3339)
Earth vs <^> <^> <^>

lchic 7/23/02 12:55am

...more females should be involved in 'human decision making processes'...

Click the link, lchic...New Search Engine ...prove to yourself, if not everyone else, that your "female brain" is decisive enough to take even this simple action.

Oh yeah...after you find out I was only trying to help (dumb male), you might attempt the impossible (for a female) and say "Thank You!"......

Anyway...you're welcome!

lchic - 06:45am Jul 23, 2002 EST (#3231 of 3339)

Google off!
Take your HotBot with you!
Cry to Mamma!
Yahoo!

DotCom2002

lchic - 07:01am Jul 23, 2002 EST (#3232 of 3339)

"" ... evidence suggests that most chief executives have only a negligible impact on the performance of the companies they run. There are, of course, exceptions. But corporate performance depends far more on what industry a company is in, what proprietary advantages it has, and the general quality of its workforce, than it does on who's at the very top. http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldcom/story/0,12167,761721,00.html

wanderer85us - 07:23am Jul 23, 2002 EST (#3233 of 3339)
Bush and Cheney - inside traders - bad apples that need to be tossed out.

lchic 7/23/02 7:01am

Executives are just there to skim off the cream, leaving the rest for the poor working stiffs to fight over.

(106 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense