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 (7907 previous messages)

lchic - 12:50pm Jan 22, 2003 EST (# 7908 of 7921)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

A Quiche thought here:

http://www.mathworks.com/products/ncd/demos.jsp#

Were 3 or 5 parties to sit down to discuss the tonnage of Quiche required to turn a 'HE' nation of militarism, towards becoming a softer 'SHE' nation of 'nature with nurture and growth' .... one would assume that each of their oscillating curves thrown up would differ, that limits and boundaries would have to be developed via compromise and negotiation, and that within those final boundaries of acceptance a final 'green' ocillating curve might form.

In Quiche terms it might determine the acceptable logistics on Quiche with respect to quantity, timing, distribution channels, supply routes, and funding --- whatever it takes to make it a 'SHE-er-World' :)

_____________

lchic - 01:03pm Jan 22, 2003 EST (# 7909 of 7921)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

That the mechanics of the thread have been lost for the present is regretable.

Looking at the thread outline it is possible to pick up the initial words of a post - along with post-date-unique|number

Tedious but more intelligable, as would be just the unique number of a post, than laying out a non-active HTML that looks ugly.

The tedious follow-ups would have to be undertaken by those who really wanted to 'know'.

Examples :

    Wow, I get that you have great respect for Paul... by manjumicha2001 - Mar 1, 02 (#35 of 7908)
    Why don't you pull down the Coyle Report, and we... by rshow55 - Mar 1, 02 (#36 of 7908)
Which is a reminder - may be time to re-look at the Coyle Report, and Carlyle, and the move from military emphasis to green environmental emphasis ... who'd need bombs and landmines in a world where the UN set graded-improving-standards for countries to follow to the betterment of their peoples and economy.

The OLD system of Nation-Nation warfare has to become an outmoded concept of the past - Globally the world is too small, too interconnected, too precious for the horrors of war to be goose-stepped onto it's beautiful face.

lchic - 01:05pm Jan 22, 2003 EST (# 7910 of 7921)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

http://www.shomepower.com/dict/o/oscilloscope.htm

rshow55 - 02:19pm Jan 22, 2003 EST (# 7911 of 7921) 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.

The OLD system of Nation-Nation warfare has to become an outmoded concept of the past - Globally the world is too small, too interconnected, too precious for the horrors of war to be goose-stepped onto it's beautiful face.

Yes ! A very few questions of mechanics - and some questions about "what it means to be a human being" -- and we can do much better.

I've taken a little time to exercise and eat - and I'll go out to pick up something before I get back to gisterme - my bet is he has some other things to do.

rshow55 - 02:20pm Jan 22, 2003 EST (# 7912 of 7921) 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.

North Korea Pledges to Hold Off Nuclear Arms Work By HOWARD W. FRENCH http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/22/international/22CND_KORE.html

SEOUL, South Korea, Jan. 22 — North Korea pledged today that it had no intention of producing nuclear weapons, a declaration made during high-level talks with South Korean officials here in which both sides appeared to be playing to different audiences.

North Korea's statement, which was heavily qualified, appeared intended to make its position sound more reasonable amid a festering nuclear proliferation crisis and to appeal to an increasingly sympathetic South Korean audience.

Steps in the right direction. Both North and South Korea are to be commended, I think.

More Messages Recent Messages (9 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Post Message
 Email to Sysop  Your Preferences  Logout

 [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