[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 (185 previous messages)

rshow55 - 09:45pm Mar 3, 2002 EST (#186 of 197) Delete Message

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 them.

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 feasible?

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 100% involnurability?

5. How much does it cost any additional percent of involnurability?

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 taxpayers?

rshow55 - 09:46pm Mar 3, 2002 EST (#187 of 197) Delete Message

MD181 rshow55 3/3/02 8:03pm


mazza9 - 10:17pm Mar 3, 2002 EST (#188 of 197)
Louis Mazza

What a bunch of malarky!!!!!!!!!


piper_pibroch - 11:37pm Mar 3, 2002 EST (#189 of 197)

Excerpt from an interview with Congressman Kucinich (Ohio).

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

More Messages Recent Messages (8 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