New York Times on the Web Forums
Science
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.
(9008 previous messages)
rshow55
- 04:10pm Feb 16, 2003 EST (#
9009 of 9013)
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)
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 -
(3 following messages)
New York Times on the Web Forums
Science
Missile Defense
|