[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 (473 previous messages)

manjumicha2001 - 06:03pm Mar 13, 2002 EST (#474 of 484)

The intelligence of the President does matter....and the languages of international politics and purposeful ambiguities are cruicial tools of dimplomacy. And no doubt US has been the biggest beneficiary of such games. I do not think however that Bush knows how to play that game. Although his attitudes might come across as fresh and straigtforward, popularity boosting exercises for domestic public, I think it will seriously undermine the stategic fabric of US stregnth in the world.

Simply put, maybe Bush is just not up to the task despite the very skillful packaging of the political machine that is set up to protect and embelish his leadership. I hope I am wrong on it because the consequences of his failure as the president will have "bad" consequences for US and the world....but can't help that sinking feeling that Bush is manily succeeding in scaring to death the top experts in all branches of his own government (to be differentiated from his political appointees).

rshow55 - 06:04pm Mar 13, 2002 EST (#475 of 484) Delete Message

From last year

lunarchick - 02:32pm Mar 12, 2001 EST (#957 of 963)

rshowalter - 02:36pm Mar 12, 2001 EST (#958 of 963) Robert Showalter

A central point is to see how much staff work this would take -- and take in a short time, so that closure could actually occur.

Staffing should be such that logical objections or questions could be resolved. Resolved coherently and with intellectual dash. In minutes or hours rather than days or weeks.

I know some staffs with that capability -- I've seen them in action. They are the "armies" of the world's great newspapers and other reporting organizations, with the connetions to the larger world that these people have.

Here are some questions, that would fit the capabilities of journalists, that might have to be adressed.

almarstel2001 - 02:44pm Mar 12, 2001 EST (#959 of 963)

Thanks, I am flatetred.

I tend to think of myself more in Kozma Prutkov's line: "If you see a cage with a Donkey with a sign "Lion" - Dont believe your eyes";)

(Kozma Prutkov is a name of 19th century Russian group of playfull intellectuals. I guess, the Russian early version of Orwellian;)

rshow55 - 06:07pm Mar 13, 2002 EST (#476 of 484) Delete Message

manjumicha2001 3/13/02 6:03pm If that's true, it is a challenge - - an intellectual and expository challenge -- but hopeful, too.

Because the things that scare intelligent Americans and people all over the world are not in the interest of the United States - - and it might be possible to clearly explain some key things (for Bush and his key constituencies) to produce better adjustments.

rshow55 - 06:10pm Mar 13, 2002 EST (#477 of 484) Delete Message

From last year

rshowalter - 02:47pm Mar 12, 2001 EST (#960 of 963) Robert Showalter

Here are questions, well suited to large journalistic organizations which, if well answered, could facilitate the practical jobs peace might take. The answers would also be the basis for good stories from a journalistic point of view. No doubt there are many other good questions. I offer these as examples.

  • *************

    What pictures would people have to see to understand a nuclear standdown procedure, and judge the checkability of it?

    What hostages would assure "business" leaders in Russia, and in America?

    How could they be treated, to facilitate dealings between the two countries?

    What are the “reasons” why nuclear standdown is impossible, or unwelcome to American or Russian sides.

    Aesthetic responses to nuclear terror and nuclear standdown mechanics - Russian and American. Grace under pressure - Russian style, American style. Entertaining hostages for month long stays. .

    Suppose a plan were fashioned that would, work, technically and emotionally, to produce a full standdown of nuclear weapons worldwide, over a few month time period, if well presented. How could the plan be best presented to Americans? To Russians?

    How to make nuclear standdown aesthetically attractive, and of high status, to the stressed Americans and Russians who must do it, and to their publics.

    The aesthetics of nuclear terror, and the terror of first strike tricks during stand-down -- means of artistic illustration to minds and hearts of Americans and Russians.

    More Messages Recent Messages (7 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