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 (9888 previous messages)

gisterme - 02:55am Mar 13, 2003 EST (# 9889 of 9895)

rshow55 - 08:25am Mar 12, 2003 EST (# 9857 of ...) http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.OKOOauWz5hI.1631370@.f28e622/11399

"...When we apply SIMPLE models of structure to circumstances that have a more complicated structure than we are thinking of , we can get into trouble..."

There may be some truth to that, Robert; but when we overcomplicate things that are simple, it's even worse.

gisterme - 03:03am Mar 13, 2003 EST (# 9890 of 9895)

lchic - 01:19pm Mar 12, 2003 EST (# 9864 of ...) http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.OKOOauWz5hI.1631370@.f28e622/11406

"... what's the Iraq War 'actually' about ?..."

It's about giving those one out of eight Iraqi chidlren who starve food instead of chemical and biological weapons and palaces and tanks and armies and...

lchic - 07:21am Mar 13, 2003 EST (# 9891 of 9895)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Australia : Prime Minister Howard made his 'Go to war' speech ...

Peter Hackworth - America's most decorated (Vietnam) soldier said he-himself would not be 'going to war' at this point in time

See this site tomorrow when transcript will be posted http://abc.net.au/7.30/default.htm

lchic - 07:27am Mar 13, 2003 EST (# 9892 of 9895)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Iraq - military strategy

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/s801582.htm

lchic - 07:29am Mar 13, 2003 EST (# 9893 of 9895)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Howard's address

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/default.htm

rshow55 - 08:53am Mar 13, 2003 EST (# 9894 of 9895) 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.

Re: gisterme - 02:55am Mar 13, 2003 EST (# 9889

I've posted this from time to time since Jul 29, 2001:

" There's a problem with long and complex. And another problem with short. . . . . The long and the short of it, I think, is that you need both long and short."

From the long, quite often, the short condenses.

----------

I know what I'm hoping for just now. A good, solid negotiation. Rooting for Blair particularly, just now.

I know what I'd dream of, right now - though I know it isn't possible. I'd love a chance to be a "fly on the wall" watching President Bush canvass for votes. It is something he's good at. It would be fascinating. And though we disagree, I think Bush really is trying to do the best he can for the United States, and not forgetting people in other nations, either. He's got some stuff wrong, but he's trying. And on the need for order, I think he's right.

I'd love a chance to facilitate negotiations between people having to make voting decisions - trying to get them clear about what they themselves actually want - considered in detail - and if there's horse-trading involved, what they really need to ask for. Whatever it is - it needs to be something they could explain without shame to the people who they are responsible for and responsible to.

I'd love a chance to deal with Saddam, and see if there was some deal he might take - might be proud to take - that would work well, and honorably, in the situation as it actually is. I know that I'd be grateful for a chance to work with a man who knows what he knows - and think I could do so in ways honorable to both of us. Just a dream.

All those things, I know, are impossible now - because there isn't mechanism, nor legitimacy for it to happen.

Talk is only so cheap - and only so passive. Ideas can be powerful. But only so powerful.

In the end, people who have votes to cast, and decisions to make, have to act.

More Messages Recent Messages (1 following message)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Your Preferences

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  / Missile Defense





Home | Forums FAQ | Back to Readers' Opinions Back to Top


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