[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 (44 previous messages)

rshow55 - 08:51pm Mar 1, 2002 EST (#45 of 58) Delete Message

gisterme 3/1/02 8:26pm if the United States could explain those "higher level needs" to other countries, in relation to the concerns almarst has set out - - - that would be useful.

And why and by what right, does the US need to dictate social-economic policy to other nations? You don't make that point clear. Is the objective the defense of the United States, or the extermination of all ideas we don't happen to like?

On another issue, you ask:

" Do you suppose that any amount of explanation, however honest, by the US of it's interests would have prevented the September 11 massacre?"

If the US had had a coherent policy, including deterrents that were actually credible -- I do believe the massacre would probably have been prevented. The fact that we backed down so often in the face of threats didn't help our cause.

rshow55 - 08:56pm Mar 1, 2002 EST (#46 of 58) Delete Message

A Memo From Osama by THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

rshow55 - 09:10pm Mar 1, 2002 EST (#47 of 58) Delete Message

I'll sleep on it, before explaining interdiction scenarios to people who ought to know about them. (Maybe what they know is that they are efficient, and don't generate contracts to the MI complex -- but instead actually solve military problems directly, using means that work?)

This thread is focused on the technical issues related to missile defense. It seems to me that the issues in

MD35 rshow55 3/1/02 7:51pm ... MD36 manjumicha2001 3/1/02 7:59pm
MD37 rshow55 3/1/02 8:12pm

are quite clear, and on point.

I've said that the midcourse interception system is an utter waste - why don't we discuss why here?

rshow55 - 10:18pm Mar 1, 2002 EST (#48 of 58) Delete Message

gotta cook. Back in the morning.

There needs to be a distinction between the interests of the American people, and the interests of the US military-industrial-oil complex. If that distinction was clearly made, the world would be a safer, more hopeful place.

If the interests are different, or the same, the reasons need to be explained - both to Americans, and people in other countries.

mazza9 - 10:44pm Mar 1, 2002 EST (#49 of 58)
Louis Mazza

By Gosh, Only 40 odd messages. You guys are slacking off. I fully expect 2500 posts by Easter.


almarst-2001 - 11:21pm Mar 1, 2002 EST (#50 of 58)

mazza9 3/1/02 10:44pm

At least you are busy counting. That's still better then doing nothing;)

As I see it, and sorry for repetition, the major problems are:

1. The US is not a benevolent superpower (at least not seen as such) aspired for the World hegemony.

2. The nations determined to stay independent (or survive) MUST have a credible deterrance against overhelming conventional and nuclear force to make an agression too costly.

3. The belief (even false) in potential efficiency of the MD may induce the preemptive strike. Even suicidal. No one would wait for the certain death coming without an attempt to at least harm the agressor.

4. The such a costly and grandiose military system can not be justified by a tread from a countries listed under the "axes of evil". It is aimed squerely at China and possibly, Russia. One has to be absolute fool to miss this point. And one has to be no less fool to think Russia or China will walk smiling into the slaughter house if they feel they left with a choice to live on their knees or to fight to the death.

Ironically, it seems the Americans just may be the last to understand the meaning of the word FREEDOM.

almarst-2001 - 11:25pm Mar 1, 2002 EST (#51 of 58)

On Sept. 11.

How many of Americans know that for the protection of Saudi rulling family, the US gets the $1 break of each barrel of oil it gets from there? Which handy comes to just over $600bn per year. Not a bad military investment, after all.

mazza9 - 01:05am Mar 2, 2002 EST (#52 of 58)
Louis Mazza



The United States defined Freedom, won its freedom and has been a force for freedom, justice and truth since its inception.

You haven't a clue and you knock the United States for what you perceive to be wrongs and slights perpetrated by the United States.

Why don't you state your nationality and show us how you and your nation state have contributed more to world history during the past 225 years.


More Messages Recent Messages (6 following messages)

 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