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.

rshow55 - 10:51pm Mar 13, 2002 EST (#513 of 522)

MD152-153 rshow55 3/3/02 10:56am

Casablanca is common ground, something culturally literate Americans know -- and that people the whole world over understand, at the level of sympathy, and intellectually, too. I used the movie as a point of departure in PSYCHWAR, CASABLANCA, AND TERROR , which tells a key story about the Cold War, interesting to American, Russians, and others. http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/0 Especially the core story part, from posting 13 http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/12 to posting 23 http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/22 There is a comment in #26 that I feel some may find interesting, as well...

A fairly compact ongoing summary of this thread from September 25, 2000 to date, which is too large for easy reading, but not for sampling, is set out with many links in Psychwar, Casablanca, and Terror -- from #151 on... http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/159 It involves many links that no longer work, but a good deal of information on what has happened on this thread, as well.

PSYCHWAR, CASABLANCA, AND TERROR sets out basic mechanisms of how psychological injury happens. It deals with patterns of psychological warfare that are still ongoing -- where lies are weapons. A key point is how psychologically injurious, and devastating, the psychological injury associated with deception can be.

The lies of "missile defense" persist because they are part of a tradition of psychological warfare - - and in psychological warfare, mistakes aren't corrected so that mutual cooperation and good decisions can occur. Lies are defended, so that progress and good decisions can be prevented. In that defense, diversion, distraction, and avoidance of fundamentals are the watchwords.

You'd think that the information in today's Advertorial http://www.tompaine.com/op_ads/opad.cfm/ID/5241 would destroy "Star Wars." You'd think that the information in this thread, and the responses of MD system supporters would destroy "Star Wars." But it isn't going to happen without some more force behind it. If world leaders decided they wanted answers clear enough -- clear enough to work in a jury trial - they could get them. And clarity, and weight at that level is what is warranted and needed here.

MD153 rshow55 3/3/02 11:10am

almarst-2001 - 10:56pm Mar 13, 2002 EST (#514 of 522)

"Can Nuclear war ever be labelled 'just' "

Hardly ever. But how many just wars - the wars which started for the just cause - can you countin the history of civilization, other then the rebellion against oppressor or self-defence? Very fiew indeed. Ironically, the recent two which come to my mind are those by the Germany and Japan against the US. Because it was the US naval blocade of Japan in defence of a British Empire and support for the US expansion in Indo-China and undisclosed attacks against German Navy fighting the Britain in the Atlantic that triggered the War.

lchic - 11:14pm Mar 13, 2002 EST (#515 of 522)

Interesting to hear of 'the other side of the coin' with respect to the origins of the Wars.

------

Interesting repeat BBC docco on Putin .. not too far into presidency ..

learning to be a leader
learning that people aren't just a statistic
Needing to put the artistic and literary culture 'on side'
A need to produce NEW music (without negative historical linkages) to march to
A need to 'sell' the reform vision to the electorate
A need for an improved deal for Chetneya

rshow55 - 11:23pm Mar 13, 2002 EST (#516 of 522)

almarst-2001 3/13/02 10:56pm ... Our definitions of "just" are different.

That doesn't mean we can't live in peace. Our definitions aren't that different.

If we are both "reading off the same page" - - we can agree on a great deal that matters.

My sense of reasonable scorekeeping matches Kristof's in A merciful war http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/01/opinion/01KRIS.html Weapons of mass destruction (all of them) should be ruled out, in practical terms, even with very imperfect scorekeeping -- if there is decency in scorekeeping at all.

We need to move toward situations that reduce human risk -- and preserve the world.

MD213-214 rshow55 3/5/02 10:11am deals with excellent points almarst made last year.

It can't possibly make any sense to support a "missile defense" program that acts to "validate" nuclear weapons, and that cannot possibly work technically.

lchic - 11:25pm Mar 13, 2002 EST (#517 of 522)

'The other side of the coin' with respect to NATO keeps airing on this thread. Set up with a fanfare .. when did it start to be seen to move away from it's supposed role ? The web site, at least, is good .. http://www.nato.int/home.htm

almarst-2001 - 11:36pm Mar 13, 2002 EST (#518 of 522)

"A merciful war" ... A "humanitarian" bombing ... A Colateral damage ...

Robert,

Are you familiar with Karamazov's Brathers of Dostoevsky? There was a phrase which significantly shaped my vision and feelings.

One of the brother's I think ask the other: "If you would know that the happiness of the World requires you to kill a single innocent child - would you do so?" And the answer was: "How can the happiness of humanity be acheved by commiting such crime?

If it would be up to me, I would reject anyone from any public affecting power position including police and the army, who could accept such a proposition.

(4 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense