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
(607 previous messages)
- 02:50pm Mar 16, 2002 EST (#608
I was in the service during the Viet Nam War. Most of us were
confused as to why we were in this war and why we we not trying to
Maybe if we had had the political strength to win this war those
millions in Cambodia might not have been killed by Pol Pot.
Remember it was the Vietnamese who would eventually drive out the
- 03:31pm Mar 16, 2002 EST (#609
Now com'on, Rouis M
Give the vietcong some credit, will you? Despite often repreated
cliche among the vet-politico circles, America gave all it got in
that campaign short of nukes (which didn't happen only because of
the threat of the greater nuclear war with china and soviets) and
they won fair and square, I would say.
But, then you people don't even give credit to 300,000 ROK troops
who saved your "behind" in Nam for those long 10 years....so what
can we expect....in the mean time, the "crocodile tears" march of
you "brave" vets goes on in the American media-politico circus. So
do me a favor, enjoy it while it lasts and save your speech about
your "glorious" service, please.
And for those who think that I am being a bit too harsh on Rouis
the Vet's sensitive soul, let me just say it is just my bad hair day
and I am short on patience for "stink" sugar coated with American
I have known many honorable US soliders who got entangled in that
fiasco but they have remained silent during the last 15 years of
Rambo-inspired revisionistic parade....good for them.
- 03:54pm Mar 16, 2002 EST (#610
On the issue of technical merits re: NMD, the latest test shows
the insititutional momentum being built into the system. And as
Rouis M so eloquently and "unintentionally" demonstrated before,
your reputation of NMD's techincial merits won't be easy because of
the "fruits of accidental lab" theory that Rouis pointed out
before--- i.e. if there is national political will for the forced
march on the NMD road, something will come out of it. And such
argument is valid as long as you are pointing out the shortcomings
of the program that are essentially engineering issues.
Maybe, you should focus on the inherent flaws imposed by the laws
of physics (vs. the engineering challenges)?? After all, such
limitations aren't gonna be solved simply by throwing money and
talents just like e=mc2 wouldn't change into e=mc3 because Bush and
Rouis exercise all of their political will and spend all the
nation's revenue on it fo rthe next 20 years......just an idea
- 05:42pm Mar 16, 2002 EST (#611
I have very little to add to what manjumicha had to say.
May be, if US would not enter this colonial-turned-anti-communist
war at all, not only people of Cambodia could be saved, but also
millions of Vietnamese as well as 50,000 Americans?
Just a thought...
- 05:57pm Mar 16, 2002 EST (#612
On "Europe falling behind the US militarely":
This is a good example of turning the problem upside-down.
The real question is not Why the Erope spends too little
but rather Why the US spends so much.
One of the reasons may be that the Europe has much less to fear
and much fever enemies? The situation the US policy is clearly bend
to change. Not by reducing its enemies but by making sure the Europe
gets its share of US enemies and rage.
The fear in Washington is that while it tries to keep the whole
world on fire on a mission to shape it by its own design and making
untol number of people mad and misarable, the Europe may appear with
a "clean hands" and pick-up the fruits of economic benefits.
If I would be small child in a position of US, I would probably
want to cry in a face of such unfearness...;)
But then again, isn't it an American udupted philisophy to accept
the man with all its imperfections?
But, if so, why to go on a mission to remake the world by its own
image? As imperfect as it may be?
mazza, please help me!!! I am totaly confused.
- 07:48pm Mar 16, 2002 EST (#613
Maybe you're not so confused. Especially when you look at the
numbers in Erlanger's piece.
Don't be confused if, sometimes, some sneaky journalists put out
arguments that would NEVER be printed straight -- backwards. (How
easy, in logic, it is to switch all the signs in a string of logic !
A classic crypto trick -- set out such a sign senstitive logic
string - and, somewhere spatially or logically removed - an
auxiliary string for sign switches. - Then SEE how hard a time your
opposite number can have trying to break it. Or how LIKELY he is to
draw a wrong conclusion. )
Try this one "backwards": Finding Answers In Secret Plots
by Erica Goode http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/10/weekinreview/10GOOD.html
The same facts can often exactly fit exactly
opposite conclusions. (A classic example is that the you can have
"arguments from design" that look exactly like some "arguments from
evolution.) To tell the difference -- add more facts.
3/16/02 3:54pm -- I appreciate your suggestion - - could it be
that a lot of people in the administration and the armed services
are heartily sick of the MD fiasco, and looking for a graceful way
to make transitions to something more reasonable? I'm thinking about
your suggestion - carefully -- back tomorrow about it.
New York Times on the Web Forums