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 - 03:44pm Feb 20, 2002 EST (#11662 of 11701)

It certainly looks that way to me. And if there is indignation and concern - - there's a lot of common ground, as well - -

Rumsfeld Says Pentagon Plan Won't Include Lies by THE ASSOCIATED PRESS http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Pentagon-Media.html

"WASHINGTON (AP) -- Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Wednesday that a Pentagon campaign to influence global opinion will not include lies to the public . . . .

"``Government officials, the Department of Defense, this secretary and the people that work with me tell the American people and the people of the world the truth,'' Rumsfeld said . .

Even if Secretary Rumsfeld and his people occasionally stretch a point, as some clergymen I've known and respected have sometimes done, the impulse behind these statements is a hopeful one, deserves respect, and shows some respect for very widespread human standards.

It seems to me that we can build on that, to the real advantage of all people of good will, and in ways that increase the real security of the United States and other nations.

I think a lot of progress has been made since you joined this thread last March . . . and there are reasons to hope for a good deal more.

We need effective defenses against weapons of mass destruction that can work.

To do that, stably, we have to build on a core of things that are common, known in common, and true.

lchic - 07:24pm Feb 20, 2002 EST (#11663 of 11701)

'You can get to the bottom of a thief, but you can't get to the bottom of a liar' An Australian Senate Inquiry is in pursuit of TRUTH - the 'brave' men of the Navy are laying it out .. and the politicans
(What do you get if you cross a rat with a politician? Answer: Nothing - a rat wouldn't stoop so low!)
are still being EVASIVE .. http://www2b.abc.net.au/news/forum/forum56/default.htm Fiji is still wanting to get to the 'truth' http://www.fijilive.com/ regarding the Coup there .... wasn't it a multimillion dollar matter relating to vast stands of high quality timber walnut trees!

rshow55 - 07:43pm Feb 20, 2002 EST (#11664 of 11701)

Sometimes politicians can stand up very tall! (Though, alas, it often doesn't happen.) But they are NOT at their best when they are being evasive.

Politicians may do it, but no politician can admit in public to "throwing truth overboard." http://www2b.abc.net.au/news/forum/forum56/default.htm

rshow55 - 07:48pm Feb 20, 2002 EST (#11665 of 11701)

Sometimes, unless you do some work, you can scarcely help but "throw some truth overboard."

We need to know some key things about what has happened, how the Cold War occurred, so that we can make good decisions, and reasonably wind down patterns that are now way out of control. Now, in some key areas, we "don't know what hit us."

We need to establish some technical facts.

And we need to meet the real security needs of world's nations.

No one can properly ask the United States to do anything that decreases its real security or welfare. Nor should any other nation be asked to do so. There is no rational reason that such sacrifices should be necessary. With good information, we should be able to increase the security of all nations of moderate good faith all over the world -- in a way that can be explained to all.

rshow55 - 07:53pm Feb 20, 2002 EST (#11666 of 11701)

Almarst asked a profound question - about concerns that other nations have to have - - including nations that the United States disapproves of - - but that want to live under the rule of law

MD3839 almarst-2001 5/14/01 12:52pm

Robert,

As I mentioned before, the nuclear wearpons and the MAD deterrance may be the only hope of any country not ready to submit to US or being treated like Yugoslavia or Iraq.

. . . .

What assurances can anyone have in a current state of the conventional ballance of power and the way, the Washington politics works?

MD3850 almarst-2001 5/14/01 4:46pm continues the thought.

"Please make your case for the nuclear disarmament in those circumstances.

There needs to be an answer.

A key issue is deterrance . Without stable patterns of deterrance, things are very dangerous. There is no feedback . For the safety of other countries, there have to be restraints on the behavior of the United States, too.

Feedback:

MD3843 rshowalter 5/14/01 3:25pm ... MD3944 rshowalter 5/14/01 3:28pm
MD3945 rshowalter 5/14/01 3:43pm ... MD3846 rshowalter 5/14/01 4:01pm
MD3847 rshowalter 5/14/01 4:05pm ...

A key question in international relations is "do undeterrable rogue nation states exist?"

If they do, how do we make them deterrable, or defend against them otherwise?

If nation states weren't "perfectly deterrable" before the late unpleasantness in Afghanistan, wouldn't they be more deterrable now? Perhaps much more?

It deterrance was defective before, isn't it better now?

(35 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense