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 - 12:35pm Feb 19, 2002 EST (#11628 of 11635)

Eisenhower warned:

"Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

"Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. . . . .

" This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence--economic, political, even spiritual---is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

" In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

" We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

We need to take care that security and liberty prosper together. Now, the military-industrial complex has based a great deal on deceptions - on lies that endanger both liberty and security.

We need both liberty and security - and for both, we must become clear about facts, and must insist on processes that build on truth, not processes that sustain lies.

It is now intensely in the interest, not only of the United States, but of the whole world, that we do this.

Missile defense is a key example. As it is being pursued, and sold, it is based on lies. The Bush administration has distorted an enormous fraction of its military and diplomatic relations, to serve lies -- and lies that they can hardly escape knowing are lies by now. It is important that we find out why, and face up to responsibilities that could be reasonably be explained to our allies, and responsible conservatives like Eisenhower.

Eisenhower was right -- we must make our military-industrial complex serve American needs and American ideals. He was right to warn us in 1961 - and we need to do it now. Now, "ideals" that have been manufactured to serve the military-industrial complex, and corruptions it has supported, distort our country, and make us both less safe and less respected than we ought to be.

rshow55 - 01:06pm Feb 19, 2002 EST (#11629 of 11635)

When there are key distinctions between "American values" and "humane values" -- we ought to pay attention. It is not only Americans who value

"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

In this thread, there has been an enormous amount of dialog with almarst , who I've regarded as our "Putin-stand in". He represents Russian culture, and is "unamerican" in many ways pertaining to culture. But the ideals that Eisenhower values most, almarst shares - - at least when he can afford to. I think that's true of very many people, and very many leaders, throughout the world.

At the same time, almarst has been bitterly critical of much about US foreign policy. It is worth asking the question -- in what ways, and to what degree, are the things that almarst objects to of practical use to America? In what ways, and in what degree, are the things that almarst objects to morally acceptable to America?

I believe that questions almarst has asked would have concerned Eisenhower, too -- especially after the fall of the Soviet Union.

The Cold War may have justified a great deal. But the Cold War should be over, and fundamental compromises of American ideals and arrangements that occurred during the Cold War should be understood.

And, once understood, brought under a control in ways that could be explained and justified, factually and in detail, to American voters, and to our allies.

(6 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense