New York Times Readers Opinions
The New York Times
Home
Job Market
Real Estate
Automobiles
News
International
National
Washington
Campaigns
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
Book a Trip
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 (6775 previous messages)

rshow55 - 08:09am Dec 17, 2002 EST (# 6776 of 6782) 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.

Republicans Say Lott Lacks Bush's Support By CARL HULSE with ELISABETH BUMILLER http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/17/politics/17LOTT.html

There are obviously many, many "low" calculations going on, in many minds and many groups involved with the Lott matter, but even so, I believe that the responses described above are good examples of human beings, under stress, making adjustments well - and that applies to Mr. Lott's responses, as well as the responses of others.

Senator Lott is exactly correct that he was not responsible for the society that he was born in - though he, like all of us, become increasingly resonsible for what happens, as we acquire power and make decisions.

If problems involving international law, military balances, and dissemination and discussion of information, worldwide, were conducted as well as the negotiations as described in http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/17/politics/17LOTT.html - - a great deal could be made a great deal better - without the people involved becoming either geniuses or angels.

I disagree, sometimes, with almarst - but if patterns of international discourse could rise to the standard of some actions described in http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/17/politics/17LOTT.html - very many of his concerns, and commondata's concerns could be much better addressed than they are today.

almarst2002 - 08:11am Dec 17, 2002 EST (# 6777 of 6782)

If You're Happy And You Know It Bomb Iraq - http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1216-06.htm

rshow55 - 08:15am Dec 17, 2002 EST (# 6778 of 6782) 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.

almarst2002 12/17/02 8:09am - - - almarst, many things are having to be renegotiated - and though I share a lot of your concerns - I do not share some of your apparent indignation.

Before you can get what you so often ask for - there will have to be considerably clearer, more workable, more stable social contracts in existence than now exist.

Prohibitions that can't work mechanically - that have unacceptable consequences - have to be adjusted, and subject to changes.

It seems to me that, for all the sound and fury, and justified fear - and all the losses, compared to what could occur with better arrangements - there are things that could be accomplished that would deal with most of your concerns - if we keep working, and stay concerned about stability.

Though "collateral damage" will never be entirely avoidable in war, and we're some way from reducing risks and costs as much as we could, and should.

'Wilson's Ghost: Reducing the Risk of Conflict, Killing, and Catastrophe in the 21st Century' by ROBERT S. McNAMARA and JAMES G. BLIGHT http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/29/books/chapters/29-1stmcnam.html bears careful reading, with emotions and analyticial capacities both working at adult levels.

Indignation can have its uses, but sometimes, almarst , I think it may get in your way, as you work (often both hard and effectively) to make things better.

almarst2002 - 08:16am Dec 17, 2002 EST (# 6779 of 6782)

http://www.worldwidewamm.org/

More Messages Recent Messages (3 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