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.

lunarchick - 12:54am Nov 23, 2002 EST (# 6199 of 6208)

The truth is a missile could launch - perhaps in error.

It's a risk.

Showalter came onto this thread concerned about just such a risk.

TRUTH - have politicians 'sold' their constituents this concern ?

If not - then - WHY not?

lunarchick - 12:59am Nov 23, 2002 EST (# 6200 of 6208)

fascist decision model - See page 8 -

http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~kaplan/eas201/201-21.pdf

lunarchick - 08:38am Nov 23, 2002 EST (# 6201 of 6208)

GU TALK - Bush - Credit - Purchase

Bush's new total spying plan: keeping a record of every single purchase you make.
02:49am Nov 23, 2002 GMT
Is this sick or what? Surely even our right wing friends aren't too happy about this. Care to share your thoughts?

http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?50@@.3ba783a5/0

Post 19

What Poindexter is most remembered for is his lead role in the Iran-contra scandal - the secret and illegal funneling of profits from arms sales to Iran to mercenary rebels fighting the leftist government in Nicaragua. Poindexter, along with Oliver North, lied to Congress, which had barred US aid to the contras, and destroyed documents about the operation. Poindexter knew so thoroughly how explosive his activities were that he ''made a very deliberate decision not to ask the president so that I could insulate him from the decision and provide some future deniability for the president if it ever leaked out.''

In 1990 Poindexter was convicted for the felonies of conspiracy and lying to Congress and obstructing congressional inquiries. The conviction was overturned in 1991 because an appellate court ruled that too much of the testimony Poindexter had given before Congress under the protection of immunity had been used, directly or indirectly, against him.

The facts of Poindexter's lying and gutting of the Constitution were never in dispute, not when he defiantly told the world, ''The buck stops here with me.''

Now the Bush administration, as if to punctuate its assault on civil liberties under the cover of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, has appointed Poindexter to figure out how to assemble and use all the data one could possibly gather on Americans. The stated reason is to spot and stop terrorist activity. By appointing Poindexter, the administration justifies fears that it will treat our privacy in the cavalier way that Poindexter once treated the law.

[And Casey who was to give evidence Iran-Contra - 'died' two days prior ..... was he struck by the hand of god - or another?]

rshow55 - 08:56am Nov 23, 2002 EST (# 6202 of 6208)
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.

I've always wondered. . . .

We're in an interesting, dangerous, hopeful time. Just now, though I'm tired - and that tends to make a person discouraged - - I'm impressed about how much hope there is, mixed with some terrible danger.

We're at a time where people are going to have to learn some things about balances - about when tensions can be managed - and how - sometimes - the avoidance of a conflict, a fight - becomes just too expensive - or even impossible.

There are some contradictions that have to be clearly resolved - some lies that carry such large costs that they have to be revisited - and the truth set out.

Some shifts of standards have to happen. And they are.

If people have the good sense to see (and feel) that stability is important - and other values are, too - and if we take our time - and proceed step by step - - a lot of things could get very much better.

There have to be some limits on the right to lie - for balanced reasons.

The costs are too high otherwise.

There have to be some times where people understand that compromise is right - not only practically but morally - and that "pure solutions" are morally wrong - because of the consequences that sort of "purity" carries.

There's a good shot that the Iraqi mess may resolve well - there's a good shot that the North Korean mess can resolve well - there's a good shot that a lot of things get better - if we're careful.

I was glad to watch Washington Week in Review last night, and hear a commentator say something to the effect that "connect the dots" was "the phrase of the season."

We have to get better at connecting the dots - and getting workable balances - and it seems to me that we are getting somewhat better. This thread has had something to do with that, maybe.

At least, it looks, on statistical grounds, like this thread has had an effect on the language and ideas of the culture where the phrase "connect the dots" is concerned.

Almarst is raising some very important points.

If people understood more about our history - and the reasons why it is reasonable to wonder if Casey was murdered - - we'd be safer - and have a better chance of making efficient and honorable adjustments - in the interest of the United States and the whole world.

(6 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense