[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 (468 previous messages)

rshow55 - 05:46pm Mar 13, 2002 EST (#469 of 484) Delete Message

More from a year ago:

rshowalter - 01:24pm Mar 12, 2001 EST (#953 of 956) Robert Showalter

Very interesting !

It seems to me that, if FACTS were established, the US military rationale would be indefensible. It would have to change.

Or, if the position actually was coherent, and something that could stand the light of day, other people might come to understand it, so we'd all be safer.

I believe that if the American people actually understood that Russia and China actually are afraid of, and in effect, being threatend by, first strikes, they'd put a stop to it.

I don't think you're looking at a coherent policy of the American people, or of the American government that exists in public, either. You're looking at the products of a scared, greedy, very old, corrupt conspiracy that needs, not only for the outside world's sake, but for America's sake, to be uncovered.

It seems to me that it should be entirely practical to do this, in reasonably short order. I've got a suggestion about half drafted -- only a "thought experiment" -- but I do believe that it might suggest the elements of a solution to the basic problem -- which is uncovering hidden facts. The key point of the plan is basic. It is openness, and the presence of effective umpiring mechanisms, to show, to all reasonable people, what the facts are.

almarstel2001 - 01:28pm Mar 12, 2001 EST (#954 of 956)

"Actually, there is some very funny and annoing aspect of the America's Cold War "victory" - there is a very little "treasure" found. Akin what may feel an all importand triumphant idealistic General, coming back to his country after defeating distant enemies, happily proclaimnig that there is no more enemies from now on, just to discover that in this case, no one needs him any more. His importance diminished, his role and the future in fluke. The "friends" are already dealing with who used to be enemy for their selfish benefit and even, his wife alrady left him during his absence;)

"The pitty thing, once the job is declared successfully complete, the layoff may be just around the corner;)"

lchic - 05:48pm Mar 13, 2002 EST (#470 of 484)

Seems that morally, philosophically and intellectually the US isn't up and functioning -- must be the SteelChick equivalent of 'egg bound' -- the US has reached an impasse -- suffering a massive constipational blockage with respect to 'ideas' on Tomorrow's World.

lchic - 05:54pm Mar 13, 2002 EST (#471 of 484)

rshow55 - 05:55pm Mar 13, 2002 EST (#472 of 484) Delete Message

We need to get some facts straight, and collected in space and time clearly enough so that some things can be made clear -- we need to "connect some more dots" - - to make a more prosperous and peaceful world possible, and to control some blazing injustices and uglinesses that almarst refers to.

We talked about doing something like that last year - -

rshow55 - 05:58pm Mar 13, 2002 EST (#473 of 484) Delete Message

From last year - - something like this might be more doable now than before:

rshowalter - 02:17pm Mar 12, 2001 EST (#956 of 956) Robert Showalter

It seems that nobody has anwers to our most basic questions about nuclear weapons, then the world needs them.

Answers can be FORCED -- and this is especially true with the new information technologies.

Particularly in a case like this, where the stakes are such that right answers are morally forcing.

And from answers, actions should flow.

I have two things in mind.

Establishing FACTS beyond reasonable doubt - and explaining these facts very broadly.


Crafting a fully workable, fully complete, fully explained "draft treaty proposal" for nuclear disarmament and a more militarily stable world. Such drafting would, at the least, make for stunningly good journalism -- that could be widely syndicated among papers. Useful as that would be, I think the drafting would serve a much more useful purpose. That purpose would be actually getting the points that need to be worked out for nuclear disarmament set out coherently - - to a level where closure actually occurs. That would involve a great deal of staff work done coherently, quickly, and in coordinated fashion.

I wonder how much might be done IN PUBLIC --- say if some Moscow Times staff, and people from a couple of US papers, some Guardian staff, and people from some interested governments, started an OPEN dialog together.

With all the government involvement possible, from all the nations concerned, and with "shadow" governments set up when the government in power did not participate.

. For instance, a "shadow US government" for this purpose might have an ex President, an ex Secretary of State, ex head of the CIA, and several former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in addition to other distinguished people.

If this involved "secret talks" it would be unworkable. But if everything was open, it would be workable.

I'm continuing to write about details, but this is the basic idea I have. I think it would work, especially if people worked on the basis of the distrust that we actually have in these matters, rather than attempt to make practical arrangements on the fiction of trust. rshowalt 9/25/00 7:32am

More Messages Recent Messages (11 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