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 - 04:02pm Oct 27, 2002 EST (# 5309 of 5310)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Putin | post Nuke_Sub-kursh was short on empathy ... today he's utilising that emotion ...

Mr Putin yesterday visited one of the hospitals where hostages were being treated for shock and poisoning from gas fumes.

"Stay here and rest," he told a young man identified as Nikita, who replied: "OK. But I want to take a shower."

The Russian leader responded: "You don't take a shower every day, do you?" to which Nikita shot back: "We were in there for three days."

Mr Putin considered this for a moment.

"Then it's time for you to take a shower," he said.

Mr Putin said: "We were unable to save everybody. We ask forgiveness."

It is not known whether a gas used before the military stormed the building would violate chemical weapons conventions. But there were strong suggestions last night that it was responsible for the injuries of many of the 349 people in hospital, and for most of the hostage deaths.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,5371767%255E2703,00.html www.theaustralian.news.com.au/

rshow55 - 08:18pm Oct 27, 2002 EST (# 5310 of 5310)
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.

Gisterme , you asked good questions in 5280-83 gisterme 10/27/02 12:54am

I responded to them in 5303 rshow55 10/27/02 10:36am and will deal with them in detail in the morning.

Communication is a key issue. Paradigm conflict is sometimes discussed. http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7726f/917 and lchic and I have done a lot of talking about it.

But in terms of your positions, it seems to me that even more basic problems are occurring. Simple questions of shared space set out in A communication model http://www.worldtrans.org/TP/TP1/TP1-17.HTML are fundamental to all communication.

Does the United States, operating as it does - have enough shared space with its adversaries to do any complicated business at all? Is there enough communication, in workable human terms, so that conflict can be avoided, so that cooperation is actually possible?

At the level workable interaction needs - is there workable contact at all? It may seem a simple - even a too-simple question. But what is the answer?

It seems to me that, much too often, you do everything you can to cut off contact - - - and then say -- look, we have no alternative to military action.

For alternatives, communication - at the level of complication human beings actually require -- has to be real.

For that, you have to deal with, and understand, the people or groups you are communicating with as human beings.

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense