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.

lchic - 08:02am Mar 2, 2002 EST (#75 of 86)

Clinton pulled himself together a 'sermon' of HIS emphasis and concerns .. currently in Australia he is both speaking and indirectly fund raising. Yesterday both HE and Queen Elizabeth were in Brisbane. She called him in for an 'audience'.

Clinton doesn't have MD on his agenda ... mores the pity ... had he, he might have been able to emphasis the reasons for truely ending the COLD WAR and bringing the missiles DOWN!

ERII in turn might have incorporated this into her Christmas 2002 address.

rshow55 - 08:02am Mar 2, 2002 EST (#76 of 86)

Senator Daschle, and every other American concerned about the safety and legitimacy of our country, ought to be concerned.

The need for arrangements based on checkable facts, and reasons that can stand the light of day, is very great. Erlanger has written an important piece:

Europe Seethes as the U.S. Flies Solo in World Affairs By STEVEN ERLANGER http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/23/international/europe/23NATO.html

"Europe's solidarity with the Bush administration, declared so quickly after Sept. 11, has faded almost as suddenly."

Has the Bush administration decided that it can "fly solo" without consulting the US Congress either?

lchic - 08:04am Mar 2, 2002 EST (#77 of 86)

The US Congress are a worry! They have to accept and play the role of 'Government'!

rshow55 - 08:09am Mar 2, 2002 EST (#78 of 86)

"Missile defense" has been a dominant theme of international debate.

In a lot of logical sequences, it would make a difference to show clearly that the "technical foundation" of the Bush administration's "missile defense" is no foundation at all.

It would be practical to do this. The technical facts are clear - and widely understood among experts. The discourse, exposition, and illustration would have to be done -- to the sort of standards that work reliably in courts of law.

If political leaders (who have a stake in truth here) wanted this to happen, it would happen.

Facts matter, and agreements about facts matter in practical politics. Not even the United States is comfortable with a "right to lie" when things can be questioned.

No patriotic American, who values the core traditions of this country, would have it otherwise.

But perhaps we are seeing an American administration that actually has departed from all ordinary world norms of decency. If so, we ought to make that clear.

rshow55 - 08:14am Mar 2, 2002 EST (#79 of 86)

Shadow Government Is at Work in Secret: After Attacks, Bush Ordered 100 Officials to Bunkers Away From Capital to Ensure Federal Survival http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20584-2002Feb28.html

By Barton Gellman and Susan Schmidt Washington Post Staff Writers Friday, March 1, 2002; Page A01

almarst-2001 - 08:22am Mar 2, 2002 EST (#80 of 86)

rshow55 3/2/02 8:09am

Robert,

While Bush is clearly the champion of MD, as I recall the Clinton did not reject MD either.

What "shadow" US force could drive those two so different men and both major Parties in he same direction?

rshow55 - 08:42am Mar 2, 2002 EST (#81 of 86)

almarst-2001 3/2/02 8:22am

The US military-industrial complex was significantly evolved by World War II, and advanced a great deal during the Truman and Eisenhower administrations. Eisenhower became very concerned, and warned against it in his FAREWELL ADDRESS of January 17, 1961 http://www.geocities.com/~newgeneration/ikefw.htm

Everything Eisenhower was worried about has happened - - and the force goes well beyond the power of presidents.

Back later on your question, which is an essential one.

People need to understand how much the military- industrial-oil complex has distorted the United States government, and national character.

rshow55 - 08:45am Mar 2, 2002 EST (#82 of 86)

Technical issues are very important in themselves, and a key to much else, as well. md59 rshow55 3/2/02 5:48am

(4 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense