[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 (244 previous messages)

almarst-2001 - 08:54pm Mar 6, 2002 EST (#245 of 272)

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration has begun a review of Cuba policy that will include an assessment of whether Cuba can disrupt U.S. military communications through the Internet, a senior official says. -

That issue will be examined along with others to determine Cuba's potential to damage U.S. interests, the official said.

The senior official, asking not to be identified, said Cuba's involvement in international terrorism also will be part of the review.

rshow55 - 10:15pm Mar 6, 2002 EST (#246 of 272) Delete Message

Thanks for posting . Hope they aren't just looking for enemies, looking for fights - - I've got to go now.

almarst-2001 - 08:20am Mar 7, 2002 EST (#247 of 272)

" they aren't just looking for enemies"

I sense that under the umbrella of "war against terrorists" the US finally, after the Cold War, found a "just" cause to expand the Empire. To crush any discontent.

Who in the US whould cry over couple of millions of dead Cubans labeled as terrorists?

almarst-2001 - 09:31am Mar 7, 2002 EST (#248 of 272)


rshow55 - 02:20pm Mar 7, 2002 EST (#249 of 272) Delete Message

A development much connected to weapons of mass destruction, and missile defense: Iraq and U.N. Hold First High-Level Talks in a Year By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

And superb comments by Secretary Annan are reported in Annan Says Terrorism's Roots Are Broader Than Poverty by BARBARA CROSSETTE

" . . . He said the United Nations as a whole was determined to look ahead, focusing on deterring violence rather than waiting to react to it. . . . .

" Moving into new and not always welcome territory, Mr. Annan said he would be referring to the Security Council "information from the U.N. system on cases of serious human rights violations and on potential conflict situations arising from ethnic, religious and territorial disputes, poverty and lack of development."

" He said preventing terrorism and violent conflict involved "addressing those grievances which terrorists find useful to exploit for their own ends."

" Where massive and systematic political, economic and social inequalities are found, and where no legitimate means of addressing them exists," Mr. Annan said, "an environment is created in which peaceful solutions all too often lose out against extreme and violent alternatives."

" The secretary general acknowledged that most countries did not want to hear from outsiders about potentially serious problems within their borders.

" He learned that two years ago when he suggested that claims of sovereignty were no excuse for mistreating citizens and getting away with it.

" Today, Mr. Annan said the way around this resistance was not to talk of the world's "duty to intervene" but rather of a country's "responsibility to protect" all people within its borders.

" Mr. Annan said that within the power of his own office, he was committed to promoting third-party mediation in areas of potential conflict as well as to using his own personal diplomacy.

I feel that the sensitivity of states to 'meddling information flows" that Annan refers to shows how important, and potentially lifesaving, information flows and clear ideas can be.

Still think the subjects referred to in MD123 rshow55 3/2/02 6:03pm are interesting - and hope that almarst and manjumicah2001 do too.

rshow55 - 05:01pm Mar 7, 2002 EST (#250 of 272) Delete Message

To the Editor:

Re "Tip on Nuclear Attack Risk Was Kept From New Yorkers" (news article, March 4):

The scare last October that terrorists had obtained a 10-kiloton nuclear weapon and were planning to smuggle it into New York was taken very seriously by senior Bush administration officials for several days before being discredited. Such a scenario is far more likely, and presents a far more immediate threat, than the one that a national missile defense system is supposed to address.

Every billion dollars spent pursuing the illusion of missile defense is a billion dollars that can't be spent securing nuclear materials around the world and on the intelligence and technology needed to reduce the clear and present danger of a loose nuke delivered by truck or ship. Add to this the recent General Accounting Office report that defense contractors have falsified test data to make missile defense look more feasible, and you have a recipe for unprecedented disaster.


Exec. Dir., International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War Cambridge, Mass., March 5, 2002

More Messages Recent Messages (22 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