New York Times Readers Opinions
The New York Times

Home
Job Market
Real Estate
Automobiles
News
International
National
Washington
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
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 (7634 previous messages)

rshow55 - 03:39pm Jan 14, 2003 EST (# 7635 of 7644) 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.

Bush Shows Impatience With Iraq but Optimism on Korea By DAVID STOUT http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/14/international/14CND-PREX.html

I don't always line up exactly with the Bush administration, and don't now. But so far as the headline description goes - it seems to me that president Bush is taking reasonable positions. Ones consistent with progess - though some changes would be desirable, and Bush's own administration surely knows it. Maybe the rate of change is ideal - or not far from ideal. For all I can judge, the Bush administration is taking the best stances it can, in practice, from where they are and were, just for now.

Though I feel I have a duty to doubt that, and some reasons to suspect they may have some problems. I disagree as a matter of principle with some things in the article. Often in practice, as well. But not always.

I'm optimistic about both Iraq and Korea, from an American point of view.

Both Iraq and North Korea have to settle on living patterns that we can sensibly live with.

If they don't, we can and should beat them. We're bigger and better than thay are - and enough bigger and better to make it all right, in this case - it seems to me. They'd do the same or worse to us, after all. But we should fight, it seems to me, only if they can't accomodate us after we've done our best to negotiate reasonable arrangements. It seems to me that we can. We should find graceful solutions - that minimize fighting when it is possible.

It is possible here, I believe - Iraq and Korea want solutions that suit us badly - for their own reasons. In the ways they reasonably can, from their point of view, they've shown that. For these solutions to be practical (for them to strike the right balance to fit the human needs in volved, and be stable) we have to settle on living patterns for ourselves with respect to other countries that Iraq and North Korea can sensibly live with.

I feel sure that fits to the real needs of everybody involved can be close and stable, within the amplitude of small oscilllations. With some key, intractable differences sustained where they functionally have to be accepted, within safe limits.

People in inherently conflicting situations have to ask each other - "what do you want me to do - that matters - that I can actually do, as I am, step by step?" A lot of reproductive interactions among the birds come up with beautiful answers to questions like this - subject to some stable conventions.

As a technical matter, the president is exactly right that a reasonable solution with Iraq is harder - from where we are now - than a reasonable solution with Korea. The Middle East is a complicated place.

Right now, I'm optimistic - and will take a nap and think a while. I'll see if I can come up with ideas that might be of immediate use the the US, the UN, and other nations.

Pardon me for feeling optimistic. It makes people uneasy, I know. It makes me uneasy, too.

lchic - 03:42pm Jan 14, 2003 EST (# 7636 of 7644)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

.... spots, dots, chicken pox .... spells and voodoo

'Shifty' has Fagan connotations

'Logs' can be wooden

:)

robkettenburg01 - 05:16pm Jan 14, 2003 EST (# 7637 of 7644)

You Can Play "Find the Boeing Jumbo Jet" at: http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm#

http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/physics_1.html - Muslims Suspend Laws of Physics!

http://www.blackvault.com/documents/matrix/matrix0.htm - The Matrix Document

http://www.angelfire.com/ny5/robkettenburg/forbiddentruths.html - The truth the media is forbidden to tell you

http://www.angelfire.com/ny5/robkettenburg/bombdamageanalysis.html - The Congressional Record of Testimony for the Oklahoma City Federal Building Bombing Damage Analysis

http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/3921461.htm - Check this out!

http://www.angelfire.com/ny5/robkettenburg - My Home Page

More Messages Recent Messages (7 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 2003 The New York Times Company | Privacy Policy | Contact Us