[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 (311 previous messages)

mazza9 - 11:42pm Mar 9, 2002 EST (#312 of 330)
Louis Mazza

You know what, I believe that Friedman is right. The lyric from West Side Story goes,'ve got to be taught to hate.."

If the Palestinians think that "just eight suitcase nuclear weapons" can solve the problem then we are in deep trouble as a civilization.

I always found a close affinity for Spock because he lacked emotion and operated from a logic based, intellectually oriented point of view. Unfortunately that's not the way the real world is and maybe that is what Roddenberry was trying to say.


lchic - 12:11am Mar 10, 2002 EST (#313 of 330)

    Reaction expected
    Experts told the newspaper to expect strong reactions from governments of the target countries.
    "This is dynamite," Joseph Cirincione, a nuclear arms expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, was quoted as saying.
    "I can imagine what these countries are going to be saying at the UN.
    "This clearly makes nuclear weapons a tool for fighting a war, rather than deterring them."
    This is very, very dangerous talk," said John Isaacs, president of the Council for a Livable World.
    "Dr Strangelove is clearly still alive in the Pentagon."
    Conservative analysts, however, have deemed it a sensible approach.

almarst-2001 - 12:20am Mar 10, 2002 EST (#314 of 330)

"If the Palestinians think that "just eight suitcase nuclear weapons" can solve the problem then we are in deep trouble as a civilization."

How different is it from the US "new" nuclear posture?

Isn't it the same line of thughts that drives the Pentagon "strategy"?

Wery soon we may witness the death of the millions of Iraqi people.

And, if successfully accomplished, expect to burry millions more - the populations of Iran, Libia and Siria first. The Korea and China later.

And Russia, for a long waited desert.

What will you feel then, LouMazza? Will you be sutisfied? Will the Pentagon? The next US President?

Assuming of couse they all will quietly wait in line for the "special treatment". Do you believe they will?

almarst-2001 - 12:22am Mar 10, 2002 EST (#315 of 330)

"Conservative analysts, however, have deemed it a sensible approach."

That can be sensed in the air.

almarst-2001 - 12:38am Mar 10, 2002 EST (#316 of 330) (LouMazza)

"We believe that Space is For the Benefit of All Humanity. That it demands the highest government and private sector priority. That those who participate in our efforts to stake claim to the new frontier will begin the process by which Mankind will become a true space-faring species. We believe the dreams of those who would wish to go further will move us closer to realization of our goal; just as our practical discoveries have always supported our dreamers."

I hope the life on this Planet will command a higher priority. Except for those who whant to change their address for the one high above. Not for themseves, I assume. Rather for others. And not neceserelly alive. At any cost. By the highest priority. In hope, I suspect, to remain themselve down here in a much smaller number. The less - the merier.

As Lenin liked to say "Its better less - but better".

almarst-2001 - 12:54am Mar 10, 2002 EST (#317 of 330)

If not found interesting, I will stop posting on this topic: Complete Analysis of the Incident at Racak on Jan. 15, 1999

But I think Robert is appreciative of the FACTS.

lchic - 07:35am Mar 10, 2002 EST (#318 of 330)

    "Nuclear attack options that vary in scale, scope, and purpose will complement other military capabilities. The combination can provide the range of options needed .....
There are NO nuclear attack options - it isn't an option!

almarst-2001 - 11:18am Mar 10, 2002 EST (#319 of 330)

"That is a unilateral assured destruction, so that no dictator could seek safety for himself or his weapons of mass destruction in some deep bunker where no conventional weapon could destroy them."

Except ONE.

almarst-2001 - 11:21am Mar 10, 2002 EST (#320 of 330)

"United States has not gone so far as to renounce its pledge made similarly by all the other big nuclear powers not to make a nuclear attack on any country that has none."

almarst-2001 - 11:22am Mar 10, 2002 EST (#321 of 330)

"That old process is incompatible with the flexibility U.S. planning"

There are so many creative ways of "skinning the cat", other then nuclear bomb.

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