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 - 06:21pm Feb 22, 2002 EST (#11749 of 11766)

That's serious.

Almarst, it seems to me that we've made some good progress -- much of it set out in directories of your postings in MD3532 rshowalter 5/8/01 6:51pm

Almarst , for some time now, I've been talking about getting some technical things checked -- talking about what would be needed to set up real checking on technical issues, with umpires. It seems to me that some opportunities are opening up where that might be done. In some cases, I've been slow to pursue opportunities that were there.

People like the idea -- or surely would, if some world leaders actually cared. It seems to me more and more likely that some may. If we had some core technical issues clarified to closure --that might count for a lot.

rshow55 - 06:25pm Feb 22, 2002 EST (#11750 of 11766)

http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20020222-77660232.htm

"But Mr. Bolton said such promises reflect "an unrealistic view of the international situation."

"The idea that fine theories of deterrence work against everybody, which is implicit in the negative security assurances, has just been disproven by September 11," he said.

"What we are attempting to do is create a situation where nobody uses weapons of mass destruction of any kind."

That is surely the objective.

rshow55 - 06:35pm Feb 22, 2002 EST (#11751 of 11766)

md11625 rshow55 2/19/02 9:02am

Other nations can reasonably object when the United States acts as if it does not care about their interests. And may object if the US government acts as if it does not care about their opinion. But perhaps the most solid reasons of all to object to decisions is that they are crazy , distorted, and based on lies and motivations that cannot stand the light of day.

Willingness to use nukes sets exactly the wrong example.

almarst-2001 - 06:48pm Feb 22, 2002 EST (#11752 of 11766)

rshow55 2/22/02 6:35pm

Do you think the simple "objection" could affect the US policy?

Interestingly, the US is doing all it can to take away the other's nation's option to defend itself against US.

It seems O.K. by Washington to bomb other nations, lacking the credible detterance.

What would the Americans do if attacked in a manner, the Serbia or Iraq or Afganistan was?

Are the Americans able to see themselves in the eyes of others?

rshow55 - 06:54pm Feb 22, 2002 EST (#11753 of 11766)

"Do you think the simple "objection" could affect the US policy?"

Yes I do!

Are the Americans able to see themselves in the eyes of others?

Not nearly well enough -- and that is a situation that I believe could be improved. Quite practically.

You have to engage at levels where there are openings - - and there are plenty of them, it seems to me.

At some levels "diplomatic usages" get in the way of expressing them.

rshow55 - 06:58pm Feb 22, 2002 EST (#11754 of 11766)

I think this thread, for all its limitations and shortcomings, does show examples of things that can be done, things that can be effective. Things that can be more effective.

People DO have to engage at the level of ideas -- when the format is right - and the status issues are right.

Including people of considerable rank.

rshow55 - 07:33pm Feb 22, 2002 EST (#11755 of 11766)

almarst-2001 2/22/02 6:48pm

"What would the Americans do if attacked in a manner, the Serbia or Iraq or Afganistan was?"

Americans have to think about that -- and if leaders of other countries care about the question of what Americans would do, or how they would sympathize - - they ought to be willing to have the issues involved engaged at the level of ideas. That's now quite practical.

Simple legalisms matter, but they aren't everything.

For instance, I have a lot of respect for A Merciful War by NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/01/opinion/01KRIS.html which ends with this:

"Military intervention, even if it means lost innocent lives on both sides, can serve the most humanitarian of goals."

BUT THAT DEPENDS ON WHAT IS DONE, AND WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS. YOU HAVE TO KEEP SCORE.

Almarst , as I understand it, you're for scorekeeping, too. If Americans did reasonable scorekeeping, by sensible rules -- wouldn't your objections be met -- if things were clear?

This is a question, I believe, on which Americans can be, and need to be, engaged.

The connection to all questions about weapons of mass destruction ought to be clear - - including the connection to missile defense.

(11 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense