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
(185 previous messages)
- 09:45pm Mar 3, 2002 EST (#186
Important questions raised by almarst in the
last few weeks.
almarst-2001 - 10:38pm Feb 21, 2002 EST (#11714 of 11726)
I don't communicate with any kind of authority and by no means
other then Internet forums and E-Mails I send from time to time to
columnists, editors or Government representatives.
On relevance of our discussions at this forum, my view is that MD
touches many aspects, the technical feasibility being just one of
The main questions, in my view, are the following:
1. Is the World domination, the unspoken US policy? And, If
yes, even as benevolent as one can imagine, is it desirable? Is it
2. If not for the World domination, what for the US needs its
unprecedented and still expanding military power, almost all
offensive by its composition and posture? Can it be explained by the
needs for the legitimate defence?
3. If the military force in the order of magnitudes greater
then that of any other nation and greater the a dosen next greatest
military powers combined - the unprecedented probably since Roman
Empire situation - is not sufficient to defend this country, is it a
hoax or a honest attempt to provide 100% involnurability?
4. Is it realistic to expect, no matter the cost, to achieve
5. How much does it cost any additional percent of
In my view, the answer to the first question is most likely YES.
At least for some people in power, even if a Missile Defense is
bluf, the $ windfall would more then compensate for the embarasment.
Particularely giving the very long time-line of this project. In any
event, while filling their pockets, they take a highland of a true
Patriots. And, if it works, they have a chance to advance the US
position toward a New Rome.
How many people of power do you know who would not jump on such
opportunity, no matter the real cost to the country and its ordinary
- 09:46pm Mar 3, 2002 EST (#187
- 10:17pm Mar 3, 2002 EST (#188
What a bunch of malarky!!!!!!!!!
- 11:37pm Mar 3, 2002 EST (#189
Excerpt from an interview with Congressman Kucinich
LOTTMAN: I've been asking people who have been involved in this a
long time, to just talk a little bit about people's views of outer
space. Why is it so important to keep outer space free of weapons?
KUCINICH: First of all, we still have a distance to go on this
earth, of settling relations between nations. Of having peace, in
the fullest sense. When you have a federal government that has a
military budget of over $300 billion, and an arms industry which
propagates the acquisition of arms around the world, obviously we
live in a world where people have not learned how to handle
conflict, and have not learned how to use nonviolence as an
organizing principle in relations between nations. We don't even
have that in our own society. So that being the case, they haven't
solved their problems within this sphere they call the earth.
How in the world can we expect to ever have peace on earth, if we
permit the heavens to be used as a staging area for nuclear
exchanges. That doesn't even get into the massive environmental
problems that would be involved. The problems of damage to the whole
eco-sphere. This is madness. And it's time for us to speak out
against this madness of hegemony in space.
There is a sense of arrogance about this. That somehow we have
the power to dominate, not only the globe, but the entire universe.
There is a sense of disconnection from matters spiritual in that, I
think. It bespeaks a vacuousness of the human heart, to talk of
weapons races that lead to engagement in outer space. It shows a
lack of concern for the continuation of the human race.
We need to make a strong commitment, to affirm our belief that
the life of the planet has to be the first concern that all of us,
as human beings, must engage in. That we have to recognize our
responsibility, as individuals, as nations, to each other. So that
we can permit each other the opportunity to continue to survive.
Talk of domination of space by a military command, with the idea
of somehow being in a position to manipulate the faith of the world,
is just not consistent with an attitude that speaks to the necessity
of the survival of the human race.
- continued below
New York Times on the Web Forums