New York Times on the Web Forums
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
(465 previous messages)
- 05:39pm Mar 13, 2002 EST (#466
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'.
- 05:39pm Mar 13, 2002 EST (#467
More from a year ago
rshowalter - 12:03pm Mar 12, 2001 EST (#951 of 956) Robert
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
The only idea that I can come up with, that fits what I know,
raises questions about the legitimacy of Mr.Bush and his
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
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
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?
- 05:44pm Mar 13, 2002 EST (#468
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 http://www.geocities.com/~newgeneration/ikefw.htm
Everything Eisenhower was worried about has happened.
New York Times on the Web Forums