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 - 02:56pm Feb 18, 2002 EST (#11610 of 11624)

Mazza:

" Would that diplomacy and international relations were simple."

Diplomacy and international relations are inherently "complex" when they are based on deceptions, self deceptions, and double and multiple dealings.

Often enough, on those terms, there are no solutions - nor any reasonable compromises, because stable arrangements are classified out of existence.

(Lies, when they matter, and can be found out, make things unstable.)

A great deal of US foreign policy, and domestic politics, is unstable now.

There are times when getting to the truth on basic facts, so that "everybody's reading from the same page" is the only hope. When situations really are complex, that's often true.

The "culture of lying" has stood against that -- but things are gettting better, and much more hopeful -- and pretty quickly, too.

Several examples occur on the Editorial and Op Ed pages of the NYT today.

When people with some power and influence care, lies are far less stable than they used to be.

Enronation is harder than it used to be. And less stable, in part, because so many of the "corrupted" are actually capable of honor.

lchic - 03:27pm Feb 18, 2002 EST (#11611 of 11624)

The ache
The hurt
The lasting pain
The stars have seen
Again - again
As each
our lives
They come to claim
with sympathy

rshow55 - 04:41pm Feb 18, 2002 EST (#11612 of 11624)

The North Koreans are out of touch with reality. http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Bush-Asia.html

" North Korea's official news agency, KCNA, complained of a U.S. ``policy of aggression on Korea.''

"Japanese reactionaries should also bear in mind that they would not escape their doom if they join in the Korean war in league with the U.S. imperialists in a bid to achieve their ambition for overseas aggression,'' the agency said."

Regimes where rhetoric is so outscale from reality are unstable and weak .

For regimes so far from reality -- are technically sophisticated jobs such as the building of ICBM's really possible? Pre-emption ought to be easy, against such a state, if it is even necessary. There can't be much "margin for error" in the system, if it is capable of technical function at all.

If North Korea was treated with courtesy, but with the regime and its people exposed systematically to truths that are hard to escape, pre-emption might not be necessary.

We must be desperate, to try to justify our missile defense program on the basis of such "threats".

gisterme - 09:25pm Feb 18, 2002 EST (#11613 of 11624)

lchic 2/18/02 3:27pm

With sympathy.

I don't demand that anyone agree with me to be my friend. Only that they be adorned with that honorable cloak of truthfulness; for within, I've found, always resides a true heart. Thank you friend.

rshow55 - 09:33pm Feb 18, 2002 EST (#11614 of 11624)

MD11526 rshow55 2/13/02 11:29am ... MD11527 rshow55 2/13/02 11:38am

In the Enron case, a question question was and is

" did people get the securities they paid for in good faith, or were they misled, in ways that were always dangerous, and turned out to be disastrously wasteful?"

We may also ask, of the government and of contractors ---

" are we getting the security that we're paying for in good faith, or are we being misled in ways that are both wasteful and dangerous."

When we are paying attention, there is a great deal of agreement on what is important. Here are excerpts from a hearing of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee into the collapse of the Enron Corporation. . . . 21 U. S. Senators spoke, and very interesting excerpts from 10 Senators are set out in http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/13/business/13TEXT.html

I think these were important statements -- statements of principles and common ground that really matter in America . Common ground very widely held, and cherished, when people are speaking in public, or talking to each other -- or acting where honor counts.

Were still living with consequences of the Cold War that were not properly accounted and resolved, and with new and vitally important challenges. Our relations with NATO, that have been central to our security interests for fifty years, are under great stress. Were in battles of ideas, where the results matter.

We need some sensible accounting on issues of national and international importance, that can bear examination when Americans, and people of other nations, are paying attention.

Missile defense is a key example.

Some basic issues of functionality are an important place to start. MD11502 rshow55 2/12/02 11:17am

(10 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense