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.

gisterme - 02:31am Dec 16, 2002 EST (# 6716 of 6719)

lunarchick 12/16/02 1:26am

"...Judge leaders against themselves..."

Tell me, how would we do that, lchic?

"...Personal strengths weaknesses..."

Okay...

"...set against personal liberty, democracy and Risks - national and international..."

Hmmm. You've lost me, lchic. How would you have "personal strengths weaknesses" set against "personal liberty, democracy and Risks - national and international" ?

What would the result of that (presumed comparison) mean? What would that mean? How does setting unlike things such as personal strengths and weakness and personal liberties "against each other" lead to a determination of whether a leader is good or bad?

"...Set-up a key list..."

Okay, that's important...what items would be considered "key" enough to be on the list? Who would decide that. You?

"...checkmark it..."

Uh Huh! That's really important...can't forget that step.

"...How do leaders rate?..."

Isn't that the process you're trying to describe? Why are you asking me??? Now I'm really confused, lchic.

"...What do people under leaderships 'think' of the leader?..."

What difference does that make in a dictatorship? Do you think Saddam cares what his people think of him? Of course he does! He needs to know who his opposition is! He maintains his power by killing or maiming all rivals, potential rivals, suspected rivals, accused rivals (and their accusers), family members and government ministers who have fallen into disfavor and of course anybody he doesn't like for whatever reason. That's just Saddam's gentle method of assuring that Iraq is never deprived of his benevolent leadership. If I had to live in Iraq right now, I would have voted for him too, lchic! How do you find out what the people think of the dictator. Just ask him?

Now in a republic or democracy or under any form of government where leaders are periodically elected in fair elections what the public "thinks" of the leader is also of little beyond temporary concern to any but the leader himself. That's because a widely disliked leader will only have to be tolerated by the people until the next election or even in some extreme cases until a recall election or impeachment can be accomplished. A leader's periodic subjection to re-election is the strongest motivation of all for an elected official to fairly represent the will of his constituents.

"...There are good, bad, indifferent leaders"...

Yes...

"...there are also tyrants and monsters ..."

Oh yes..., yes...,

"...who need to be checked!"..."

Uhhhhh! They do, they do!!! Ohhh, they neeeeeed to be checked! :-) Whew! Now I'm excited!

Huh, huh, huh...just catching my breah...Hmmm. So some person with rank would send some money to the lchic Leader Checking Agency to get leaders checked before they were actually allowed to become leaders. What a concept. Now how would the product be delivered? How would the decision be indicated? Would a bad leader come out with a checkmark on him or would that be a good leader?

You should contact Hillary, lchic. I'm sure she'd listen for a small fee.

rshow55 - 06:55am Dec 16, 2002 EST (# 6717 of 6719)
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.

As so often the case, gisterme sets up a straw man.

But the fact that a lot of dialog is going on is good. If the rating process lchic suggests was staffed - with different points of view - even umpires from different points of view - but with the issues collected (perhaps sorted differently from different points of view) and presented clearly for all to see on the internet - - that would be progress - especially if staffed organizations with power did look at it - - there wouldn't have to be any "veto power."

The very best kind of persuasion - the kind that works before juries is "here - look for yourself."

That kind of persuasion is much, much more possible with the internet than it was before.

That kind of persuasion rules out the many stories that don't make sense from any point of view - once the relevant facts are collected.

and speaking of freedoms - - my email has been blocked again. I don't appreciate that.

But I do appreciate this forum. (My computer just got penetrated again.).

almarst2002 - 07:08am Dec 16, 2002 EST (# 6718 of 6719)

gisterme 12/16/02 12:15am

Your criteria for interfearence looks reasonable and prudent.

But, left for the captains of geo-political gameship and real-politics strategist coupled with undeniable real interests of certain military-industrial-capital powers, how can you guarantee the true criteria is consistently uphold. Just compare the rigor of say US criminal law provisions put in place to ensure the fair trial where at stake is a life of a single individual with the process in US on a war-peace decisions done behind close doors based on such a secret "evidence" even Senat and Congress is denied access to.

On the question of 1/10, your example of GB can't be taken seriously as this country resembles a good beheaving puppet following the big muster and at most ready to burk first.

Honestly, I firmly believe, the US and its Citizens would look and behave in a dramatically different way if this country would be 1/10 of its current size and strenth. It would look for peaceful ways to settle the conflicts and problems. And it would have a defencive armed forces thinking on protecting its home.

(1 following message)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense