New York Times Readers Opinions
The New York Times
Home
Job Market
Real Estate
Automobiles
News
International
National
Politics
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
New York Today
Crossword/Games
Cartoons
Magazine
Week in Review
Multimedia
College
Learning Network
Services
Archive
Classifieds
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 (4679 previous messages)

rshow55 - 08:34am Sep 30, 2002 EST (# 4680 of 4688) 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.

Postings on the Guardian Talk thread Psychwarfare, Casablanca -- and terror today:

http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/345
http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/346
http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/347
http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/348
http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/349
http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/350
http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/351

Many of these posting had this header:

" Lchic and I have been proceeding with our work on the NYT MD forum on the assumption (or fiction) that it is monitored by staffed organizations - and I'm posting this selection of links on the basis of that assumption. (for details, click rshowalter ). At a time when basic patterns of international law are being renegotiated, the discourse may be of interest to specialists - and the channel it represents may be of international use. If we're proceeding on the basis of a fiction, it is a fiction that may protype patterns that are not fictional at some later time.

The last of these postings ended as follows:

Working systems need rules, and patterns of exception handling (more or less ordered) - often in stages. Complex circumstances can dictate this. We seem to be in a circumstance now where exceptions to the basic rule of the U.N. -- "no territorial aggression" - -are being renegotiated. Given circumstances, that negotiation may be necessary. The United States is not abrogating all international order - nor could it. US military power is constrained by circumstances, including circumstances of ideas. But it is time for great care - and risk - and we need clear heads, and courage. 4308 rshow55 9/14/02 10:12am Sometimes, for unavoidable reasons - that will require us to learn to acknowledge some shared facts. Human relationships, often enough, cannot be peacefully sustained without them. 4297-8 rshow55 9/13/02 6:15pm

manj asked a welcome technical question - I'll be responding today.

lchic - 08:56am Sep 30, 2002 EST (# 4681 of 4688)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

America on America / Egypt - 1950's Nasser said

'The genius of you Americans is that you never make clear-cut stupid moves, only complicated stupid moves which make us wonder at the possibility that there may be something to them which we are missing.'

Now, Nasser was the father of both Arab nationalism and Arab socialism, the self-evident genius of which we "stupid" Americans can barely comprehend. So it's not shocking that he would have a hard time figuring out what and, more importantly, why we oddball and backwater Americans do what we do.

http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?50@@.3ba74ed6/0

.... When Chad is in trouble, all American eyes do not go to America. In fact, since 95 percent of Americans have no idea where or what Chad is, their eyes don't go anywhere at all.

...................

.... America is unique because it has the power to be an empire and has chosen not to be one. That choice wasn't merely a hard-headed calculation of our self-interest. And it wasn't an accident either. It was a moral choice, reinforced from one generation to the next

lchic - 09:19am Sep 30, 2002 EST (# 4682 of 4688)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Killing the Children - Report (bbc) shows children as vitims in ME war. The figures for child deaths (below) are almost double now.

Amnesty International '2001' Annual report
    "" In the 15 months to December 2001, more than 750 Palestinians were killed by Israeli security forces, the vast majority of them unlawfully when no lives were in danger. More than 220 Israelis, including 166 civilians, were killed by Palestinian armed groups and individuals. Many children were among the victims: more than 160 Palestinian and 36 Israeli children were killed. More than 18,000 other people were wounded, many maimed for life.

lchic - 09:22am Sep 30, 2002 EST (# 4683 of 4688)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Above two posts have 'not being an Empire is a moral choice' juxtaposed with America pumping 3.5 billion dollars a year into Isreal - resulting in massive child death, death, and personal injury.

It's as if 'the dots' just haven't connected!

More Messages Recent Messages (5 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 2002 The New York Times Company | Privacy Policy | Contact Us