![[F]](../_images/site.gif) 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?
    (10412 previous messages)
wordspayy
- 01:29pm Dec 16, 2001 EST (#10413
of 10657)
Continued:
Not following suit subjects worldwide leaderships with charges of
not protecting the most important thing, the state.
Just as America is in reaction to its own security environment
all other states will be in reaction to Americas. The largest holder
of nuclear weapons has undertaken a strategy of believing it can and
must survive a nuclear onslaught. For every action a like reaction
will take place. The system (nations are actors within a system)
will attempt to balance itself. The ripples within the worldwide
system of deterrence will break down what has in effect prevented
nations like Iraq from unleashing weapons of mass destruction. The
technology America now envisions to protect itself with proliferate
(it always does) and future encounters with nations like Iraq will
result in consideration of WMD by rational states because the risk
of survival as been increased due to the existence of shielding
technology. Non-survival is no longer an absolute due to the
introduction of shielding methods. This was the very reason SALT I
was envisioned and signed by the two largest holders of nuclear
weapons.
In these times when non state actors are playing an ever
increasing role in the world arena and have in all effect
demonstrated their use of WMD (A Boeing 747 fuel bomb killing
several thousand civilians is a WMD in my mind) Americans need to be
reminded with such non state actors, no rules exist. You cannot
totally thwart those who do not care about their future existence
and survival. Following a pattern that destroys the worldwide
deterrence model in hopes of thwarting the irrational actor only
makes rational states like Iraq, like North Korea stronger. Iraq
rational, North Korea rational? Crazy you say. Is it? Or is it so
right on the mark that I just blew your whole mind.
wordspayy
- 01:34pm Dec 16, 2001 EST (#10414
of 10657)
hellfire34th - 01:21pm Dec 16, 2001 EST (#10412 of 10414)
"SDI MAD MDA all Rock! "
You need to pick up a book son. You have mixed innitives with
concepts and sadly MDA is a drug not a theory relating to
international nuclear detterence. SDI is a innitaitive born out of
William Teller and bestowed to Reagan. MAD, simply is the
theoretical concept that emerged out of the arms race between Moscow
and Washington. Read son, and stay off the MDA;0
wordspayy
- 01:42pm Dec 16, 2001 EST (#10415
of 10657)
! Did anyone see the movie "Read Dawn" or read the book? You know
that the book and the movie was based on the actual invasion plains
of the USSR and it would have happened if it was not for MAD! The
author of the book was briefed by the CIA and the NSA and some
Russian defectors that were KGB on the invasion sanrio and he wrote
a best selling book about it.
Red Dawn was one of the best examples of 80s hollywood work done
in conjuntion with the Department of Defense with the sole intent of
trying to scare the general population into acceptance of increased
defense spending. The movie was born from the department of
defense-;0. Any good academic institutions public affairs class that
does a focus on historical propaganda during the Cold War will cite
this movie. It is a claassic. Sadly you fell for it. Thats ok, we
all did;0 In 1984 however, the opposite view came into existence and
played to 48 million Americans. It killed the SDI movement within
the American public circle and made being a person who supported
arms control "cool" just as Red Dawn made the NRA look "cool" The
television movie of course was ??????:)
Ohhh
don't remember huh;0
Take a class;0 Read-
wordspayy
- 01:45pm Dec 16, 2001 EST (#10416
of 10657)
"The Day After"
wordspayy
- 01:47pm Dec 16, 2001 EST (#10417
of 10657)
Jim McLain was filmed during the ascendancy of Edward Barrett and
the Voice of America service. [66] Wayne's control of film form, a
tactic further honed during 1980s 'Reaganite'
entertainment-as-oppression, such as John Milius's film Red Dawn
(1984), was first argued for by Donald McGranahan in PSQ Journal
(1946). He suggested that "full frontal attack" and "evangelical
propaganda" would be more effective. McGranahan felt that the
"lowest common denominator" would create a receptive mass audience.
[67] This directive meant that monopathic forms of propaganda film
would become dominant, especially in newsreels [68] and horror
films. [69] Significantly, because melodrama was sourced from 19th
century short story and theatrical conventions, [70] it created
trance-like social fictions and moral codes that an audience
'conditioned' by such conventions would more readily accept.
wordspayy
- 01:52pm Dec 16, 2001 EST (#10418
of 10657)
hellfire34th,
hey son. Read:
Visions of Empire
Political Imagery in Contemporary American Film By Stephen Prince
Political Communication, Praeger Series in (ISSN: 1062-5623) Praeger
Publishers. New York. 1992. 232 pages LC 91-44449. ISBN
0-275-93661-9. C3661 $67.00 Available (Status Information Updated
11/8/2001) A paperback edition is available: 0-275-93662-7,
$20.95
hellfire34th
- 02:57pm Dec 16, 2001 EST (#10419
of 10657)
WordSpray why do you call me son? I was in three wars and served
America proudly! I hold three purple hearts and a load full of other
prestigious meddles. The day after is a great work of art! I does
show what would happen without MAD! MAD was the mechanism that
assured the "Day After" never came to be! The treat of SDI really
heated things up and brought the USSR to its knees. The USSR could
not sustain and arms race to keep MAD going nor could they contend
with SDI. Pres. Reagan's concept of SDI sent the USSR into a dismal
tail spin. Don't you think Bin Laden would have used nukes if he had
them? I do! AS for MDA, like all other systems there is R&D and
LOTS of failures before it is effective. I would rather have MDA to
prevent these rouge nations from launching a stray nuke at us. Have
not you heard that N. Korea will have an ICBM within a year or two?
Have not you heard that N. Korea is great friends with states like
Libya, Iran, Iraq, China. Iraq would love to lob an ICBM at America!
lchic
- 02:59pm Dec 16, 2001 EST (#10420
of 10657)
... Yawn .. so much 'boy' talk above ..avid comic-book reader(s)
...
 
(237 following messages)
  
New York Times on the Web Forums Science
Missile Defense
| 
