Forums

toolbar



 [F] 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.


Earliest Messages Previous Messages Recent Messages Outline (11720 previous messages)

rshow55 - 11:48am Feb 22, 2002 EST (#11721 of 11726) Delete Message

Almarst , your next two questions are important and difficult. Answers to them hinge on your first question, and I want to add short comments here:.

"2. If not for the World domination, what for the US needs its unprecedented and still expanding military power, almost all offensive by its composition and posture? Can it be explained by the needs for the legitimate defence?"

I'd ask - Can this size of military be explained at all, in current circumstances, to Americans who are paying attention, or to people of other nations? It hasn't been so explained. We'd be safer, and could face our problems more easily, if these issues were clear.

"3. If the military force in the order of magnitudes greater then that of any other nation and greater the a dosen next greatest military powers combined - the unprecedented probably since Roman Empire situation - is not sufficient to defend this country, is it a hoax or a honest attempt to provide 100% involnurability?"

There's no such thing as 100% invulnerability for the people of any nation state. When you ask if our military posture is "hoax, or honest attempt to provide 100% invulnerability" -- remember that the US is a large and many-headed nation and interlocking systems of organizations and connections. It is some of each.

We are dealing with a situation here is that is unstable. It can easily be perturbed, and changed, by asking for the truth about details. The situation, I believe, is such a mess that the adjustments likely to flow from questions are desireable.

lchic - 01:27pm Feb 22, 2002 EST (#11722 of 11726)


rshow55 - 01:59pm Feb 22, 2002 EST (#11723 of 11726) Delete Message

Things can be hard to plan . . . but they are even worse when they are NOT planned. The end of the Cold War wasn't planned, or anticipated at just the time it happened, in the ways that happened. There were no reasonably prepared plans for peace -- there had been little thought about transitions to peace. Bill Casey was terribly worried about it, and insisted that I worry about it.

World War II was a very different situation -- from mid 1944, the US had big, well organized teams working out how to adjust from wartime to peacetime.

MD11581rshow55 2/16/02 1:51pm
MD7381-7382 rshowalter 7/24/01 12:34pm

" When the Soviet Union fell, and everyone, on all sides, had so much hope, we didn't have an end game -- and the United States was so tied up with lies, that it could not sort out problems before it -- or help the Russians sort out their problems."

We should work to fix things now -- not go on making them worse. Our concerns about terrorism make these points more important, rather than less. If we discussed things, and thought things through, a lot of muddles could be cleared up, to the advantage of almost everybody concerned.

MD6057-59 rshowalter 6/26/01 6:22am . . MD6397-9401 rshowalter 7/2/01 7:00am
MD6613 rshowalter 7/4/01 10:46pm
MD6614 rshowalter 7/4/01 10:48pm

MD6551 rshowalter 7/4/01 12:41pm

rshow55 - 02:22pm Feb 22, 2002 EST (#11724 of 11726) Delete Message

And so patterns that had come to exist were continued - - and justified in any way that the "establishments involved" could find. And some of the "establishment" involved had well earned and impressive credentials - for instance the credentials and connectionse of the people on the CSIS Board, Counselors, and Advisers http://www.csis.org/about/index.htm .

Things kept on going - under circumstances very different from the ones that had justified them in the first place.

And this happened in a situation where neither the President nor the Congress had effective oversight on the most important things the military was doing and saying.

See ARMED TO EXCESS by Bob Kerrey http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/02/opinion/02KERR.html to get a sense of the degree that the House and Senate had been "taken out of the loop." They are still "out of the loop" in key ways.

Programs grew subject to the institutional imperatives behind them, with much of the "justifying discourse" of a standard that, in my opinion, would have done little credit to Enron.

Controls are needed on all necessary social functions, including the military function. Our controls on military function have been defective, because too much power has been given to a "hidden government." The rationales used to justify military programs and forces have distorted our foreign policy and domestic politics.

Good adjustments would be likely if influential people asked questions that required real answers.

That isn't impossible. There have been some answers supplied on this thread. Just because it was possible that some NYT people might be paying attention.

I believe that, if the matter were checked, some changes in missile defense program arrangements could be traced to this thread. Of course, that's just a guess.

lchic - 02:29pm Feb 22, 2002 EST (#11725 of 11726)

Stumbling
Not Falling
the USA
Not YET!

Great Nations
Have to be
Well run
or they fall
on the sword of
their own
stupidity!

More Messages Recent Messages (1 following message)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Email to Sysop  Your Preferences

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  / Missile Defense







Home | Site Index | Site Search | Forums | Archives | Shopping

News | Business | International | National | New York Region | NYT Front Page | Obituaries | Politics | Quick News | Sports | Science | Technology/Internet | Weather
Editorial | Op-Ed

Features | Arts | Automobiles | Books | Cartoons | Crossword | Games | Job Market | Living | Magazine | Real Estate | Travel | Week in Review

Help/Feedback | Classifieds | Services | New York Today

Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company