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?

gisterme - 07:18pm Nov 1, 2001 EST (#10268 of 10657)

ledzepplin wrote ( ledzeppelin 11/1/01 3:05am ):

"...The lack of duty of care was self evident...countries such as the UK and US whom trained and financed the Taliban and OBL to overthrow the USSR and then its puppet government, were not innocent and by walking away enabled the place fall further into degradation and the control of the likes of OBL."

What would you have done just then led? Would you have the CIA installing its own puppet government? Don't forget that the Cold War wasn't quite over yet...

"...“Just let 'em starve, right?” That is your answer, is it!..."

Absolutely not. That was my baffled response to your statemnet that giving food to current Afghan refugees was no part of a solultion. That was apparenty your crass intention. And now I'd accuse you of deliberately taking things out of context.

Nobody's intentionally attacking innocent civilians in Afghanistan. Although any loss of innocent life or property is tragic and regretable, it's just the kind of thing that sometimes happens in wars. If the Taliban really cared, they'd put a stop to it by handing over OBL.

"...You clearly like terrorists, given your wish, would but create many thousands more OBL’s..."

That's clearly an absured statement, zep. As I recall it is the US that has been under attack for some years by Al Qaida...let's see...should we just let bin Laden destroy us in order to prevent the making of more bin Ladens? I don't think so.

"...I would have taken all the evidence with regard the Embassy atrocities in Africa and the US Navy vessel I would have presented that to the Islamic Clerics in the US the UK and in Mecca and asked them to give a judgement on those crimes; alone, at that time..." etc., etc., etc.

That's pure, unmitagated appeasement that you're proposing, zep! Neville Chamerlain would be proud of you if he hadn't already learned this lesson the hard way. You want to know why that wouldn't work, zep? There are several reasons:

1. Muslems in middle eastern countries are already terrified of Al Qaida and know they have no power over it. If they do the wrong thing, Al Qaida will be after them.

2. Even if some Muslem clerics found the guts to condemn Al Qaida and bin Laden, the Taliban would have no obligation to do what any clerics say. Remember that bin Laden owns the Taliban. As for bin Laden's sincerity about Islam, and desire to comply with Sharia law, I don't doubt that he'd wipe his behind with Mohammed's cloak if it would further his personal aims.

3. Humanitarian aid already being sent to Afghanistan was mostly not reaching the intended recipients. Just as it happened in Somalia. How would sending more aid help if it were to be administered by the Taliban?

"...I would abandon Star Wars. To reiterate I stated that herein months ago, Star Wars just gives credence to criminals whom hide behind the cloak of freedom fighters to say no one Christian nation should have imperialistic control of the firmament..."

Huh? I care far less about what "criminals who hide behind the cloak of freedom fighters" say than what they do. If words were all they wanted to shoot at us I might also say let's abandon BMD. Unfortunately the Chinese technology sales that Mike pointed out show that more than words are involved here.

(389 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense