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 - 02:49pm Feb 16, 2002 EST (#11582 of 11603)

I've suggested in MD6808-10 rshowalter 7/9/01 3:43pm and before and since, that gisterme , who has posted so extensively on this thread, could not have done so, without the knowledge and backing of the very highest levels of the Bush administration, including Rice , Rumsfeld , Armitage , Wolfowitz , Hadley , and their bosses. The inference, though unproved, continues to seem reasonable. Based on posting language, and some responses to some of my postings concerning Stanford University, I've sometimes thought that the individual-team that posts under the name "gisterme" might even include Condoleezza Rice. In any event, gisterme has been able to show high contacts, including, judging from the link under the name kangdawei , Ann Coulture.

MD7009 rshowalter 7/13/01 1:07pm . . . MD7010 rshowalter 7/13/01 1:11pm
MD7011 rshowalter 7/13/01 1:11pm ... MD7011 rshowalter 7/13/01 1:32pm

A great deal of effort! Much of it, alas, with the intent to deflect and distort, when clarity and checking would serve the national interest. Perhaps I'm being unfair. In all event, gisterme's posting have been extensive, and frequently impressive.

It seems to me that by facing some facts gracefully -- facts that are coming out anyway, and making reasonable accomodations, in the interests of the whole world, including nearly all American citizens, we could have a much safer, more reasonable world. . . . . Why doesn't it happen? The number of possibilities is getting narrowed down.

MD11068 rshow55 1/26/02 4:14pm ...MD11069 rshow55 1/26/02 4:15pm

lchic - 05:31pm Feb 16, 2002 EST (#11583 of 11603)

.

lchic - 05:42pm Feb 16, 2002 EST (#11584 of 11603)

..

rshow55 - 06:03pm Feb 16, 2002 EST (#11585 of 11603)

Questions asked in June are worth asking again -- alas, now some of them have predictable, sad answers.

Solving for C by Thomas L. Friedman http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/08/opinion/08FRIE.html

Excerpts:

". . North Korea. First the president trashed the Clinton negotiations with the North. But with both America's European and Asian allies appalled by that, Mr. Bush has now ordered a resumption of talks. How will they be different?

"Maybe the biggest question Europeans will have for President Bush when he comes here next week is: Now that you have dumped the Kyoto treaty as a vehicle for reducing global warming — which the National Academy of Sciences just confirmed is happening — what will you replace Kyoto with? The answer needs to be a serious plan, say Greek officials, otherwise it will cause a major rift with Europe's people.

"There is nothing wrong with a new team coming in and saying: We're going to be tougher than the previous lot. Some of Mr. Bush's instincts are right. But there is a fine line between a tougher effective foreign policy and a tougher ineffective foreign policy, with no allies. Clearly the Bushies don't want the latter. But it remains to be seen what their option C is — where exactly they will strike the balance between their campaign rhetoric and the world of our allies. ....

In some ways, September 11 "solved" the problem for President Bush. But in many ways, it did not -- and bad answers before September 11 remain bad answers now. I've sometimes wondered -- is President Bush really for the United States?

Or is he just committed to a military-industrial complex addicted to big, expensive, unfunctional boondoggles such as the nexus of "systems" misnamed as "missile defense"?

Is he working for his daddy, and Carlyle, and an "old boy network," or does he actually care about the safety of the United States?

Does he care about the safety of his allies at all?

If he did, he'd be for right answers, it seems to me.

And it seems to me that he'd avoid actions with predictably negative results -- provoking reactions from China, and Iran, that go against our interests.

rshow55 - 06:21pm Feb 16, 2002 EST (#11586 of 11603)

I'm sure the answer has to be "or course he cares."

But not, somehow, enough to get the information that good decisions need -- or do the communicating, on a direct and mutual basis, that real alliances need. Or come to the working accomodations that complex cooperation, if it is to work, always needs.

On missile defense, and military policy in general, right answers have to matter. Often enough, facts have to be checked, and faced.

(17 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense