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 - 07:48pm Feb 26, 2002 EST (#11867 of 11881)

almarst-2001 2/26/02 7:11pm

I was probably insensitive to use the phrase "behavioral deficit" - - but difficulties that NK has in other spheres probably do have something to say about their competence as missile designers and fabricators.

Your "On N.K. " raises seven very good questions. And seven very good reasons why Russia, China, and S. Korea might have a leadership role in peacemaking and commercial relations with N. Korea, with the US and Japan in a more awkward position.

1. It is true that North Korea should have shared in Japan's WWII reparations. Here the "fortunes of war" were cruel and unfortunate in many senses.

2. It is true that the US-Korean war affected the N.K. much more then the South.

3. It is true that S.K. benefitted from direct and indirect US capital investments, investment's guarantees and trade while N.K. suffered under strict economical embargo and isolation. Yes, N. Korea was pushed to the corner economically. It would make great sense to find ways to remedy the situation. The language of threat, going both ways, blocks the chances of that. I don't defend some of the dehumanizing language Bush used. Some of the N. Korean language has been intensely troubling, too. When Kristoff said today that N. Korea did things that rivalled the worst of Stalin, that is surely a cause of difficulty as well.

4. It is true that N.K. could feel treatened by the massive US presence in the South. The fact that the US and N. Korea remain officially at war, after almost half a century, is a nightmare -- to the discredit of everybody involved.

Does anyone think that N.K. may have a legitimate reson to believe it needs a credible deterrance against a superpower it remains officially at war?

Yes, but "legitimate" occurs in a context, and when nuclear weapons are involved, and motivations seem unstable, arguments of "fairness" aren't very interesting. If N. Korea is threatening the US with nuclear weapons, and the US can eliminate that threat -- it should. When I think about counting corpses, from nuclear explosions - that's where I come out -- and I think a lot of other people do, as well.

I'm for reducing nuclear weapons in all other hands, as well. I'm against mass murder. . . I'm worried about instabilities. . . . I try to count. . . . But N. Korean hands do seem especially unstable to me. How useful it would be if Russia, China, and S. Korea could play an effective role as peacemaker here.

-----

Q5. What would guarantee the N.K. defence if US decides to attack it?

A5 : Absolutely nothing -- and the North Koreans should know that. They should also know that, if threats can be reduced, the US wouldn't attack N. Korea. (And international relations should be arranged to make the risk of unreasonable action less likely -- which asking for clear explanations would do.)

- - - -

Q6. Why should the US be more concerned about N.K. WMD then the N.K. about the US thousend's times greater arsenal of WMD?

A6: This has to be clarified. For all concerned. Both the US and the N. Koreans should be forced to answer some questions. Neither side is in a particularly rational or tenable position.

- - -

Q7. What would be ascenario when N.K. commits a suicidal act of attacking the US, other then if the US attacks the N.K.?

A7. Deterrance should be stable, and it would be progress if deterrance were stable without resort to nukes. Other nations -- Russia, China, S. Korea -- the EU nations -- could make great contributions here, exactly because neither the US nor N. Korea are acting well, or rationally.

rshow55 - 08:11pm Feb 26, 2002 EST (#11868 of 11881)

Cleaning Up in Bush's Wake By Doug Struck Washington Post Foreign Service Tuesday, February 26, 2002; 12:43 PM http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4835-2002Feb26.html

TOKYO, Feb. 26 – "Japan and South Korea are trying to calm the waters after President Bush's continued harsh rhetoric toward North Korea on his trip to Asia last week. .... "

"Calming the waters" - - and finding ways to make progress in cooperation -- are good things to do.

One way to "calm the waters" is to apologize . . . something Japan definitely needs to do to the Koreas

Rape Camp by Dawn Riley (lchic) http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?13@@.ee79f4e/1512

It is much less useful to refuse to apologize, and say "we don't care what the facts are" -- because real human cooperation requires a sense of what has actually happened. MD11836 rshow55 2/26/02 12:38pm

How useful and healing common ground about facts can be. MD11835 rshow55 2/26/02 11:22am

almarst-2001 - 08:24pm Feb 26, 2002 EST (#11869 of 11881)

If the US was able to attack Serbia - the nation which had no WMD, the most "westernised" member of an ex-communist block, the only trully independent country unvilling to joing the Soviets and the NATO, the country which never harmed even a single US Citizen, what will prevent the US to attack N.K., the country it is still in war, the country it failed to defeat, the pure communist stronghold? The only thing which may protect them, as well as China and Russia is a credible WMD deterrance.

(12 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense