New York Times on the Web Forums
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
(23 previous messages)
- 07:03pm Mar 1, 2002 EST (#24
For a stable world, workable deterrants between nations are
essential -- and I think that will always be so.
But they don't have to be nuclear. They should be
calibrated, proportionate, usable, and credible enough that they
need to be used very seldom.
We shouldn't pick a fight with N. Korea. If we actually had to,
that would be a different situation. Threaten N. Korea, and it
fights -- more and more desperately -- fights to the death -- and
the pattern may not be rational, but it is entirely predictable. You
guys are going at things wrong.
Whatever we do, we need much better communication.
Workable outcomes, both the political ones and the miltary ones,
- 07:05pm Mar 1, 2002 EST (#25
Here's a fact. Anybody who has studied military matterns ought to
Consider two groups, weapons drawn, confronting each other. In
order for a surrender or a peace or a victory
or a defeat to occur with stability, there has to be
clear communication, and for things to work, people who fear
and distrust each other have to deal with each other with good
enough stability so that things don't fall apart.
Taking down hostilities is touchy, and things can very easily
Clear communication is vital.
There is no substitute for it -- because stable solutions are
hard to get -- impossible if (very many) wrong moves are made.
- 07:08pm Mar 1, 2002 EST (#26
The "simple" asymptotic solution where one side exterminates the
other is distasteful, and also generally impractical. Morality
counts, but even if it didn't, you want an end of hostilities where
the survivors can and do go on with their lives, and interact, when
they have to, peacefully.
Nukes are extermination weapons. Useless for anything else. We
have to do better than that.
- 07:09pm Mar 1, 2002 EST (#27
Notwithstanding your lenthy pontification (with which I mostly
agree, especially re: technical "challenges" of NMD program), the
international dance continues. Obviosuly Paul Wolforwitz has not
gotten your message yet?
Anti-missile missile due in '04, U.S. says
March 01, 2002
WASHINGTON - U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz
announced Wednesday that prototype intercept missiles will be ready
for launch by 2004 fall as part of the U.S. missile-defense program.
In a meeting with U.S. senators, Mr. Wolfowitz reported that four
prototype missiles would be deployed at Fort Greeley, Alaska, by
Air Force Lieutenant General Ronald Kadishof reported to the
senators that by 2004, the probability of being able to intercept
missiles launched from North Korea toward the mainland United States
would be high. He also said he had reason to believe that engine
testing of the Taepodong II missile and its launcher was still
taking place in North Korea, despite its claim to have stopped all
End of quote
- 07:13pm Mar 1, 2002 EST (#28
Unless NKs are entirely stupid, they should have contemplated
this before they "supposedly" (i) [stopped] their WMD program in
1994 and (ii) [suspended] their ICBM program in 1998 as we are
repeatedly told by the likes of NYT?
I serously doubt the bracketed words are what NK and USA did
really agree on in 1994 and afterwards.....
- 07:13pm Mar 1, 2002 EST (#29
If the N. Koreans are competent enough to launch an attack at
all, they can easily counter that system.
The system is a very expensive false security for the United
States. Moreover, we ought to get our problems with N. Korea sorted
out peacefully, and in a fully satisfactory manner, much before
- 07:19pm Mar 1, 2002 EST (#30
Is it just me or are the military/political leaders of USA
putting words in NK's mouth as they see fit in cooperation with US
media (whether knowingly or not).......?
I don't think I ever heard NK saying they will stop the testing
of ICBMs. In fact they kept saying their missile program is in
self-defense not to be negotiated. I think what they said was if US
will launch their satellites for free, they won't go ahead with
their own space launch program. Also, they said they are putting
moratorium on the repeat of 1998 style space launch test to
facilitae the comprehensive nomalization discussion that was
ongoing.....which has been effectively scuttled by Bush and his
Am I wrong on this?
- 07:20pm Mar 1, 2002 EST (#31
Are you saying Paul Wolfowitz is NOT telling the truth to US
- 07:24pm Mar 1, 2002 EST (#32
I think that is distinctly possible.
- 07:43pm Mar 1, 2002 EST (#33
"distinctly possible"? Isn't it either yes or no question?
I mean NMD program is either effective and workable or
ineffective and unworkable?
I do not see the middle ground on that issue, do you?
New York Times on the Web Forums