[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 (291 previous messages)

rshow55 - 04:20pm Mar 9, 2002 EST (#292 of 310) Delete Message

almarst-2001 3/9/02 4:05pm . . There are too many people who comfortably become professional soldiers to call them "idiots." They are very human. And many very smart. War is easy, and natural. It is peace that is hard. As a species, we haven't learned enough about gaining it, and maintaining it.

But the United States is a somewhat special, and dangerous case. The US military-industrial complex is something rather recent in American and world history- though it was already significantly evolved by World War II. It 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

The worst things Eisenhower warned about have happened, and have established themselves deeply in our culture. And the world has to ask questions - and get answers - and act on them.

lchic - 04:28pm Mar 9, 2002 EST (#293 of 310)

A point made before is that the 'wealth' of the US is in part derived from 'the rest of the world' bringing to it advances for patent and manufacture.

The human academic capital of the US, together with dollars to exploit, give it the edge.

If the US fails to act responsibly, how can it when it may not have a true democracy - separation of powers, then US needs counterbalancing by Eurasia.

almarst-2001 - 04:33pm Mar 9, 2002 EST (#294 of 310)

"War is easy, and natural."

Did you try?

It may be true only for politicans who feel safe in their offices to send someone else to kill and die.

As for professional army contigent, I feel very strongly about what I said.

And I was drafted and served.

There are very fiew if at all, any "profession" I could dispise more then army.

In case of US, I believe its particularely true. By many fold.

almarst-2001 - 04:35pm Mar 9, 2002 EST (#295 of 310)

"If the US fails to act responsibly .. US needs counterbalancing by Eurasia"

The US need counterbalancing and deterrance BEFORE it fails to act responsibly.

It will be too late after the case.

rshow55 - 04:36pm Mar 9, 2002 EST (#296 of 310) Delete Message

almarst-2001 3/9/02 4:15pm For you to express such concerns -- well, though I agree - only so much can be done - - because there are times when there has to be an association of ideas with POWER.

But if people with some political power, world leaders - wanted to reduce the risks - to move in the direction of "taking fewer chances" - - some good could be done.

Organizations like the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War - which won a Nobel Peace Prize in 1984 - - are in disarray -- not knowing what to do. If somebody like Putin, called them up and talked to them - a lot might be done.

Just a hypothetical, of course. But the point is - with so much, so crazy, some of the instabilites involved with information could be favorable - - but it would take help from people with some force.

lchic - 04:43pm Mar 9, 2002 EST (#297 of 310)

People don't see the evil of the silent nuclear threat.

They do see this physical surreal reality in vivid technicolour via all senses (sight sound touch taste smell) :

A witness:

    "A man walked in and blew himself up. There are pieces of him all over.
    "The police are distancing people from the scene. It's the most horrible thing I've ever seen."

almarst-2001 - 04:51pm Mar 9, 2002 EST (#298 of 310)

While may be real, the thousends of nuclear devices pointing in all directions by nuclear powers are even more real. Particularely when coupled with a promise to use them quite freely.

As for the terrorists, I still think the real danger will come from the bio-terrorism.

rshow55 - 04:56pm Mar 9, 2002 EST (#299 of 310) Delete Message

Just made the point -- with a "hypothetical" -- that if a major leader wanted to empower resistance to US policy - - it would be possible.

There's plenty to be concerned about.

U.S. Nuclear Plan Sees New Weapons and New Targets by MICHAEL R. GORDON

rshow55 - 04:58pm Mar 9, 2002 EST (#300 of 310) Delete Message

lchic 3/9/02 4:43pm points out the key fact that it is important to make the circumstances clear and vivid.

That takes work and resources.

almarst-2001 - 05:13pm Mar 9, 2002 EST (#301 of 310)

"U.S. Nuclear Plan Sees New Weapons and New Targets"

Are we witnessing the down of a "humanitarian" nuclear bombing?

More Messages Recent Messages (9 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