New York Times on the Web Forums Science
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
(44 previous messages)
- 08:51pm Mar 1, 2002 EST (#45
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.
- 08:56pm Mar 1, 2002 EST (#46
A Memo From Osama by THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/26/opinion/26FRIE.html
- 09:10pm Mar 1, 2002 EST (#47
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
3/1/02 7:51pm ... MD36 manjumicha2001
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?
- 10:18pm Mar 1, 2002 EST (#48
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.
- 10:44pm Mar 1, 2002 EST (#49
By Gosh, Only 40 odd messages. You guys are slacking off. I fully
expect 2500 posts by Easter.
- 11:21pm Mar 1, 2002 EST (#50
At least you are busy counting. That's still better then doing
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
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.
- 11:25pm Mar 1, 2002 EST (#51
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.
- 01:05am Mar 2, 2002 EST (#52
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
New York Times on the Web Forums Science