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 (9008 previous messages)

rshow55 - 04:10pm Feb 16, 2003 EST (# 9009 of 9013) 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.

Summary of postings between Sept 25, 2000 and March 1, 2001 (#6)

People interested in religion and ethics may be particularly interested in #792-797. rshowalter 2/27/01 6:03pm

It begins: ..... Tina Rosenberg represents one of the most admirable flowerings of a tradition, admirable in many ways, that , taken no further than she takes it, makes an effective nuclear disarmament impossible.

Rosenberg believes .... People need to know what was actually done. ...That's surely right.

But what was to be done with the facts? . .. . .

Something was missing from the book, and the situations it described.

In the complex, conflicted situations described, beautiful justice is impossible. There are multiple contexts, each inescapable and in a fundamental sense valid.

An aesthetically satisfying justice can be defined for each and every set of assumptions and perspectives that can be defined. But there are too many sets of assumptions and perspectives that cannot be escaped in the complex circumstances that are actually there. . . .. .. . .

http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md00100s/md789_791b.htm

http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md00100s/md792_794.htm

http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md00100s/md795_796.htm

http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md00100s/md797_798.htm

The situations Rosenberg describes, where she hungers for justice, do not admit of satisfactory justice. They are too complicated. . . . . . What is needed, for logical reasons that are fundamentally secular rather than religious, is redemption. rshowalter 2/27/01 6:03pm

http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md00100s/md792_794.htm

  • ****

    Postings thereafter include some explict TECHNICAL reasons why we need to be afraid, and need to do the hopeful, practical thing -- which is to GET RID OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

    rshow55 - 04:15pm Feb 16, 2003 EST (# 9010 of 9013) 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.

    Also on March 1, 2001 there were these postings on the Guardian Talk thread There's Always Poetry

    1202 .. http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee79f4e/1554 by rshowalter -

    1203 . . http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee79f4e/1555 by bNice2NoU -

    1204 . . . http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee79f4e/1556 by rshowalter -

    1205 http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee79f4e/1557 by bNice2NoU -

    1206 http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee79f4e/1558 by rshowalter -

    1207 http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee79f4e/1559 by rshowalter -

    1208 http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee79f4e/1561 by bNice2NoU -

    1209 http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee79f4e/1562 by rshowalter -

    1210 http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee79f4e/1563 by rshowalter -

    1211 http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee79f4e/1564 by bNice2NoU -

    1212 Our nuclear balances are less safe than people think ... http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee79f4e/1565 by rshowalter -

    1213 http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee79f4e/1566 by rshowalter -

    1214 http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee79f4e/1567 by rshowalter -

    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 2003 The New York Times Company | Privacy Policy | Contact Us