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.

babcoja1 - 04:24pm Jun 15, 2000 EST (#93 of 11858)

The fascinating issue in today’s article is how furiously Clinton has lawyers working to determine how far we can go in developing a missile defense system without appearing to violate the ABM treaty. Naturally he doesn’t want Democrats looking like doves during a presidential campaign, because hawks can claim the moral high ground by claiming that they are defending our nation from attack.

Now, why is that the case? Mister or Ms sipwine635 in message 86 has the audacity to suggest that opponents of this defense system conceal another agenda. The only agenda on MY plate is the preservation of my life and livelihood.

Creating this missile defense system is necessarily an impetus to a continued nuclear arms race. The principle of mutually assured destruction may have kept the world from nuclear war in the last century. More likely, nobody shot their missiles because they weren’t assured of hurting the opponent enough. (See the controversy over the effectiveness of the Patriot missile.) Furthermore, as functional technology is developed (to borrow the hackers’ notion) it wants to get free. For cryin’ out loud, folks, we can’t even keep nuclear research safe in a top secret vault in Los Alamos, now, can we? Our own military personnel can sell secrets for 25 years without getting caught.

Now, the livelihood part: I’m sick of piles of money going to defense contractors for big scary bombs, when (yes, the old liberal cliches) we’ve still got big problems with poverty, racism, and poor public schools. Whether Clinton actually intends to develop this system, or just to appear to intend to, tons of money will fall into this miserable hole. This country is willing to sacrifice (literally) impoverished lives at home for a political game or a technological white elephant. How twentieth century! Capitalism at its stinkiest.

hshamod - 11:55am Jun 21, 2000 EST (#94 of 11858)

Let's be clear about this matter: 1. the tests have been rigged recently to make sure they don't fail; thus, in his matter, the public has been lied to about the effectiveness of this "anti-missile" system;2. the cost is outrageous; most pentagon costs escalate at least 10 times original estimates and often weapons don't work (see Bradley, Humvee, etc.) 3. Clinton has no sense of other cultures and their responses to our domestic ethnocentrism; the recent comments from Germany and others should warn us that this system will cost us more than it will gain even if we "put it up for bids" (that's the beginning rhetoric of a slippery slope of spending). Sorry folks, don't fall for it. Sincerely

kalter.rauch - 05:45am Jun 22, 2000 EST (#95 of 11858)
Earth vs <^> <^> <^>

babcoja1 6/15/00 4:24pm