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
(152 previous messages)
- 11:10am Mar 3, 2002 EST (#153
A key set of qustions, relations, and facts involve a technical
dream - - that Americans, Russians, and others feel differently
about. The dream, like all dreams that people work for, can only
become real if it is consistent with the facts.
. The dream is the idea that American military
forces, and the United States as a nation, can be made immune to
missiles, long range or short range, carrying nuclear weapons or
other destructive means, and that the United States, at the same
time, can have decisive weapons, including missiles, and "space
based" weapons, that will permit it to dominate all other nations
That "dream" -- whether you are for it or against it, depends,
for its practicality, on technical facts.
One cannot, as a matter of logic, rule out the dream "in
general." But one CAN rule out specific means proposed to implement
it. One can rule these implementations out (barring miracles that
can be specified) using information in the open literature.
Facts are safer than scenarios based on fictions. It is in the
interest of virtually all Americans, and in the interest of the rest
of the world, to evaluate this "missile defense" dream, and its
relation to US military and diplomatic policy.
A great deal is technically clear now. MD84 rshow55
- 01:12pm Mar 3, 2002 EST (#154
- 02:00pm Mar 3, 2002 EST (#155
Superman flew around in space 'thinking' between posting and
arrival at destination.
Here's a thought:-
On Stories, caught a night-time movie. It was about a person
under hypnosis who was living in the now, the life of a person who'd
died half a century perviously ....... the question was, would the
ENDING be the same - that is death - or - could it be turned towards
a more constructive solution ...
Isn't it the same for MD .. does the NOW ENDING to the story have
to be the old ending ...
Or could it be turned towards a more constructive solution .....
the Nukes ARE TAKEN DOWN
Who's going for which ending?
- 02:24pm Mar 3, 2002 EST (#156
Has the US lost its way?
Does everybody hate America? Maybe the world is just concerned
at the lack of visionary leadership from such a powerful nation
- 02:52pm Mar 3, 2002 EST (#157
People are concerned. There's time for some serious thinking,
about happy endings.
Why should Bush take Europe seriously?
"Simplistic", "absurd" and in "unilateralist
overdrive". Europeans know what they don't like about President
Bush's "axis of evil". But if the European Union can't get its own
foreign policy act together, nobody is going to listen Steven
Everts Sunday February 17, 2002 http://www.observer.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,651636,00.html
And about patterns that get in the way of happy endings, and in
the way of decisions that people can understand and respect.
The "political technology" that sustains the "missile defense"
boondoggle, and much else that has grown cancerous about the US
military-industrial complex since the "end" of the cold war, is
powerful, and understanding how powerful it is, and how it works, is
important so that it can be countered. It is important that facts be
established, and decisions based on them. When the public is
informed, paying attention, and acting wisely this happens. But the
nightmare irrationality of much of US foreign policy, and the
missile defense boondoggle, is based on other "logic."
New York Times on the Web Forums