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.

lchic - 02:12pm Mar 13, 2002 EST (#457 of 484)

http://www.nctimes.com/news/2002/20020310/60236.html demos the fact that the US has an imperialist C18 Foreign Policy ... shows no understanding of the 'needs' and desire for 'political progress' of the common man. http://www.robincmiller.com/index2.htm

rshow55 - 02:16pm Mar 13, 2002 EST (#458 of 484)

We have to act like human beings!

The American people do not know - have not faced -- what has been done in their name - - and other countries need to see to it that they know. And face the consequences of what they propose to do.

We are using "deterrant" patterns that invite and assure conflict. We also have cut off contact to so much of the world, to such an extent -- that we make enemies. And now some of them are quite real.

For all the work that has been done on this thread since Almarst came on in the beginning of March of last year - - it is sad, and scary, that almarst felt he had to post MD434 almarst-2001 3/13/02 11:00am

We have to do better than that - - because being decent requires it - - and our own safety does, as well. We CAN'T defend against everything. On Sept 11 that was demonstrated, using one attack among countless other possible ones.

rshow55 - 02:29pm Mar 13, 2002 EST (#459 of 484)

Egypt Will Press Iraq to Accept U.N. Inspectors by REUTERS http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-mideast-cheney-mubarak.html

almarst-2001 - 03:31pm Mar 13, 2002 EST (#460 of 484)

On DEFENSE:

Unless the US policy is directed toward a concept of a "City Dweller" (Robert may remember) in search of absolute safety, ready to exterminate all what surrounds him,

The Defense must be justified by specific Tread.

The Tread must be linked to the clearly explained and reasoned Conflict.

The honest and vigorous effort should be given to the Resolution of the Conflict. The common sense dictates this should take even higher priority and resources then Defense itself.

All of the above is sorrely missing in the current and large part of the past US Policy.

Why it is so and what is wrong?

almarst-2001 - 04:00pm Mar 13, 2002 EST (#461 of 484)

Egypt Will Press Iraq to Accept U.N. Inspectors by REUTERS http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-mideast-cheney-mubarak.html

A pretty clear "Sorry Dic, but NO" (in diplomatic terms) to the plans to attack Iraq.

almarst-2001 - 05:24pm Mar 13, 2002 EST (#462 of 484)

Bush: U.S. Nukes Are Deterrent - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22264-2002Mar13.html

Not so, if to believe the Pentagon leaked document.

rshow55 - 05:26pm Mar 13, 2002 EST (#463 of 484)

almarst-2001 3/13/02 3:31pm

I remember your comment - just a year ago- and I'm posting it below. And you make key points. I wish you weren't so right when you say:

"All of the above is sorely missing in the current and large part of the past US Policy.

You ask: "Why it is so and what is wrong?

If world leaders ask for answers -- at the level of detail answering those questions would require -- I think they might get them. Finding those answers would have to be "news." That would take explicit questions from leaders.

(21 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense