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.

almarst-2001 - 09:08pm Feb 20, 2002 EST (#11672 of 11701)

To my naive suggestions above I can add that as of this moment, the US Government is planning to expand its propaganda and misinformation apparatus even beyong the all-known involvement in the media of the CIA.

Additionally, the US, Britain, Canada and Australia are maintaining the super-secret "carnivor" system of collecting the electronic information around the Glob quite unscrupiously and without any legal supervision.

If establishing the trust is a cornerstone of preventing the conflicts, those acts are hardly helpfull.

Add the unprecedented and disproportional size of US military and its presence all over the Glob, the rejection of most War Crime and military ethics related treaties, rejection of nuclear arms reductions, race to militarise the Space, villingness to use military force anywere anytime with no regard to international laws and principles of civility, the longest list of military aggressions, many extreamly brutal and targeted against civilian populations and infrastructures then any other country since WWII, wide use and promotion of economical sunctions mostly affecting the ordinary civilians as a means to create internal conflicts and replace the regime, while quite openly offering the economic help (effective bribe) as an incentive to topple the regime. there hardly left any country on Earth, the US is not actively involved in supporting the regime against the will of the population or acting to topple the regime regardless of the will of the affected citizens. Wery fiew places on this planet left unmarked by the US military instalations and bases.

This is, in my view, the closest thing to the "big brother" for all other nations one can imagine. Hardly an equal partner for honest discussions and arguments.

rshow55 - 09:10pm Feb 20, 2002 EST (#11673 of 11701)

almarst-2001 2/20/02 8:40pm

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

WOULD be worth the effort.

Excellent questions! The process wouldn't have to be either particularly messy, or particularly long, considering the stakes.

" The panel(s) of critics acceptable to all involved sides must be invited and encouraged for intellectual debate."

Journalists, in major newspapers and other media, in countries where people have an interest, would be a natural part of that.

If the leaders of some of the nation states that are or aspire to be truly democratic and free societies wanted this to happen, it would!

I think people and organizations would be proud to participate in and support the work if that happened.

almarst-2001 2/20/02 8:40pm is excellent!

rshow55 - 09:27pm Feb 20, 2002 EST (#11674 of 11701)

almarst-2001 2/20/02 9:08pm

"Hardly an equal partner for honest discussions and arguments."

When disagreements are real, assumptions of "equal partnership" and "good faith" are, at best, imperfect.

But when there are ways of establishing key facts, to real convergence, very many inconsistent positions are ruled out - - - and a common view of reality often converges.

What is needed, is a way to get some key facts and relations to closure.

One reason I've been attending to questions of technical fact on missile defense, and asking for "technical umpires" on some key questions there, is that the technical issues involved are relatively clear - - and can be set out for all to see.

The technical grounding for the US "missile defense" program is very weak - - in a world where respect for fact was obligatory - - there really isn't any basis for it, from a tactical perspective, at all.

If world leaders wanted to have the technical issues involved checked to a closure that would be clear to virtually all technically competent academics and engineers in the world -- that would happen.

Once the technical point was established, much else would follow.

The patterns set out by Ralph Reed MD11621-23 rshow55 2/19/02 7:52am only work well when nobody's paying attention!

lchic - 09:29pm Feb 20, 2002 EST (#11675 of 11701)

R E A S O N ~ WORLD DAY OF

Additional to 'truth' there is 'reason' ... this too demands logics and right answers.

rshow55 - 09:34pm Feb 20, 2002 EST (#11676 of 11701)

In "Beauty" http://www.everreader.com/beauty.htm Mark Anderson quotes Heisenberg's definition of beauty in the exact sciences:

"Beauty is the proper conformity of the parts to one another and to the whole."

MD664 rshowalter 2/9/01 1:53pm

We should be able to get solutions a lot more beautiful, more workable, than the "solutions" we have now.

(25 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense