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.

rshow55 - 11:35pm Mar 12, 2003 EST (# 9887 of 9895)
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.

By historical standards, President Bush and Prime Miniser Blair are acting very well - and according to moral standards as high as one can find among power holders. ( not angels )

White House Says It Wants U.N. Vote on Iraq Friday By ELISABETH BUMILLER with FELICITY BARRINGER http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/13/international/middleeast/13IRAQ.html

President Bush feels that God speaks to him personally - and I think that's dangerous. In fact, I take the opposite view - my own religious position has been for a long time that God was " a nonexistent sonofab*tch" - an idea that isn't consistent, but that fits, roughly, with my own experience. Something many people might understand if they'd had to live through what I have. Perhaps Job would have understood such a position. http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md01000s/DetailNGR.htm

So I'm not religious, myself. Still, Casey scared me quite a lot, and his concern was contagious. And his concerns still echo in my consciousness. Prior to 9/11, I was getting very anxious. I thought the world might blow up. http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee79f4e/1556 Between March and August, 2001, it seemed to me that great progress was being made - from my own narrow perspective. But by September, I was getting very concerned, I had a strong, wrenching feeling that something terrible might happen unless some good decisions were made. I worked as hard as I could - feeling I had to get some results - or be overcome by events. In Grapes of Wrath By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/12/opinion/12FRIE.html made a confession:

"Right after 9/11, I was given a CD by the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, which included its rendition of "The Battle Hymn of the Republic." I put it in my car's CD player and played that song over and over, often singing along as I drove."

I felt very differently. I was wrenched by the horror of 9/11, but my main response (you can trace something about that response by looking at postings in http://www.mrshowalter.net/calendar1.htm ) was relief.

Something horrible had happened - but still, it was only so terrible. Fewer than 3000 people had been killed. It hadn't been nuclear. I'd been lying awake nights, afraid that something would happen. My overwhelming response, terrible as 9/11 was, was relief that it hadn't been worse. That's still my response. A lot of work has gone on since 9/11.

Now, it seems to me that some other terrible things may happen. Though we may be able to avoid them, given discipline and wisdom.

There's a quote from Benjamin Franklin:

" Experience keeps a dear school. A fool will learn in no other."

Dear schools can be better than none. Much better. I'm fearful, but hopeful, too. I don't think the world will blow up - don't feel the risks are nearly as great as they have been. With some wisdom, costs could be very small.

9385 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.OKOOauWz5hI.0@.f28e622/10923

9446-7 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.OKOOauWz5hI.0@.f28e622/10985

Maybe I've got it exactly backwards - but it seem to me that if responsible people associated with the Security Council negotiate carefully - with their senses fully engaged - and if Arab states do, too - a lot could go, if not well - as well as anyone can reasonably hope.

Simple things matter. Most of the improvement in human health, since the 16th century, has been due to a very few basic things. We might be able to accomplish a few basic things in international law fairly soon - if people are careful.

Not that I trust myself - or that other people should trust me any more than they'd trust a talking dog.

gisterme - 10:05pm Jan 17, 2003 EST (# 7768 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@93

rshow55 - 11:43pm Mar 12, 2003 EST (# 9888 of 9895)
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.

Not that I trust myself - or that other people should trust me any more than they'd trust a talking dog.

gisterme - 10:05pm Jan 17, 2003 EST (# 7768 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@93.i5GBae6A01p^782947@.f28e622/9293

People have to look for themselves, decide for themselves. A lot of times, things work out reasonably well. When people get scared enough - serious enough - "insoluble" problems often sort out.

Currently, nations seem prepared to expend tens of billions to engage in fights that look avoidable - kill tens or hundreds of thousands of people - displace millions, and anger hundreds of millions - - but whenever there is any whiff of a reason not to - nations see to it that key facts can't be checked, - even if it could be done for relatively tiny amounts of effort.

Is that really an unchangeable fact?

out.

(7 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense