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 - 07:59pm Feb 20, 2002 EST (#11667 of 11701)

MD6980 rshowalter 7/12/01 12:25pm includes many careful postings, only a few of them mine, and it argues that the nation states of N. Korea, Iran, and Iraq are not "undeterrable" in the sense the Bush administration thinks.

It seems to me that if there are powers in the world, in possession of weapons of mass destruction, who are not now deterrable, they have to be restrained , in the interest of all, in ways that work. That would apply to Al Queda . Would it not also apply to the United States? Doesn't the United States have to be restrained, too, by the rule of law, or by other means? Why shouldn't other nations feel that she should be?

To find solutions, that are workable, it seems to be that key challenges are to establish some key things about what has happened, how the Cold War occurred, and to establish some technical facts. Facts that everyone can see, and agree on, however they happen to feel about them.

If we had this common knowledge, could we solve our problems, well enough to meet our reasonable security needs?

It seems to me that we could. But some interested parties might have to be forced to face facts.

Would this be possible? Perhaps not, but sometimes facts are hard to evade, when people are watching, and questioning cannot be closed off.

The real security needs of the United States would have to be well served, and the American people would have to understand that their security needs were being well served, and their interests were being well met, for this to be possible.

If the facts involved were clear, it seems to me that this should be completely possible, and in the interests of all concerned. Moral indignation might help in a few spots. But usually, it wouldn't.

rshow55 - 08:00pm Feb 20, 2002 EST (#11668 of 11701)

Almarst , you have some clear concerns, expressed in almarst-2001 2/19/02 2:08pm , and I think you're right to be concerned. But if you were an American politician, what would you suggest? Would you know what to suggest? Would you know how to communicate with US politicians, opinion leaders, and voters? Do you think Putin would know? These are interesting questions, I think.

America has to have satisfactory answers to her security needs, including the needs connected to missile defense. Asking "how do you think other nations feel?" may provide interesting context -- but America needs satisfactory answers. You aren't against that, are you?

almarst-2001 - 08:40pm Feb 20, 2002 EST (#11669 of 11701)

"America needs satisfactory answers"

Yes.

But lets first define the questions.

1. What are the American interests abroad which may affect the interests of other nations. And how vital those interests are respectivly? How those interests are defined, by whom and for whoes benefits?

2. Who are American enemies and why. Is there any realistic options for compromise or this is a zero-sum game?

3. What are their realistic options in harming the American interests short of suicidal attack. What if at all is there a chance for such suicidal attack?

If we exclude the missionic idea of converting all the nations into mini-US-like in all respects (which is not only unrealistic but, in my view, hardly desirable), the unswers should be stright-forward and honest.

In trully democratic and free societies those questions should be raised by a media and debated widely. Supplemented by a honest and sufficient information about culture, traditions, history and the projection of the real life of the average citizens in all affected countries. At least the honest attempt in this direction must be made. The alternative points of every view must be actively seeked and presented for the debate - just like in any honest judicial court. The foreign assessement of the US actions must be actively seeked and honestly presented. The panel(s) of critics acceptable to all involved sides must be invited and encoureged for intellectual debate. All arguments presented as facts must be validated by joint or independent commisions and the media.

Such a process may look quite messy and long but, if successful in preventing the misunderstanding, mistrust and war, could be worth the effort.

lchic - 08:42pm Feb 20, 2002 EST (#11670 of 11701)

WAR ...
an open sore
keep it running
festering
look for Rogues
evil toads
excuses for
military weapons
d o l l a r
C H U R N

lchic - 08:45pm Feb 20, 2002 EST (#11671 of 11701)

The end game with 'empires' has most often been 'trade'. Unfortunately the emphasis on 'military' trades doesn't help create a 'peaceful' world.

(30 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense