[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 (465 previous messages)

lchic - 05:39pm Mar 13, 2002 EST (#466 of 484)

Mr Bush being the puppet of elderBush who has his conflict of interest fingers in the Carlyle pie -- as the Guardian well know when posing that question.


    Last year Alex said : "There must be a major discussion today about the desired geopolitical place and role of US, the moral and ideological guidance and limits, it will be absolutly never cross. May be even constutionalised?
Right! There has to be major discussion. Little point in directly involving the block-head-bricked-mind of the current US ... discussion best set up and run elsewhere .. sending copies of results of discussion (by rest of 'free world' (cute phrase)) back to US via 'News'.

rshow55 - 05:39pm Mar 13, 2002 EST (#467 of 484) Delete Message

More from a year ago

rshowalter - 12:03pm Mar 12, 2001 EST (#951 of 956) Robert Showalter

That's a very good question.

I don't know who you are, but you are a very sagacious person. If you could do so (and I'll not expect it, but I'll hope for it) could you list any coherent and believable ideas you have about the answer?

The only idea that I can come up with, that fits what I know, raises questions about the legitimacy of Mr.Bush and his administration.

Does ANYBODY have a coherent reason for a missile defense system that - considered as a system, can't possibly work?


almarstel2001 - 01:03pm Mar 12, 2001 EST (#952 of 956)


Sorry but my English isn't good enough to know what "sagacious person" means. Still hope its not somthing terribly shamefull;)

As for coherent set of ideas... As far as I remember, Clinton did not reject the idea of NMD either. So it has to do with somting else, including the prevealing american mentality of ultimate power of money to buy enything and to solve any problem. And the constant "adds compain" just continuelsy reminds us just how much "joy" awaits us once we get this new "toy". Just like this bottle of a Coke;) Can you think of anyone other the "Coca Cola Corp" as a main beneficiary?

In my view, the main interests ($) are of the military-industrial complex (sorry for repeating this as a slogan) and some influential entrenched since Cold War Washington think-tanks who have to justify their existance and keep the political influence by inventing the new enemies after the Cold War. The main question they probaly ask is the one, Mad. Allbright asked while insisting on bombing the Serbia: "What for do we have such a fine military if we can't use it?" Indeed, the 30% of a trillion $ budget military has to have some purpose and justification. And its not the defending of the American soil...

So, how can you justify all this conventional might, or just a thread of using it, which become absolete against even small country posessing even a few nuclear ballistic missils?

Another reason may be the one raised by Putin: Since after the Cold War, America is loosing its importants to its alias as an ultimate protector via NATO, the monopolised missils defense system may be the answer. Againg, it will require the credible thread to exist (even created if so needed;) for its justification.

In my view there is the whole set of related questions, including, among others, the need to maintain and even expand the NATO and the need to maintaing so large and costly offensive military around the glob.

Eventually it all comes down to the basic - the role the America wants to play as the only and ultimate superpower, the means and tools by which this role may be fulfilled and, most importantly - WHO WILL BENEFIT MOST FROM THIS POLICY?

rshow55 - 05:44pm Mar 13, 2002 EST (#468 of 484) Delete Message

lchic 3/13/02 5:39pm .. There does have to be a major discussion -- we were talking about that a year ago.

And almarst's question of "who benefits?" is KEY. NOT the American people as a nation -- what we are doing does NOT serve the interests of the nation as a whole.

We need to understand, explain and document some key things that Eisenhower became very concerned about , and warned against it in his FAREWELL ADDRESS of January 17, 1961

Everything Eisenhower was worried about has happened.

More Messages Recent Messages (16 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