[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 (613 previous messages)

rshow55 - 07:57pm Mar 16, 2002 EST (#614 of 632) Delete Message

Because so many stories make sense from several - and often opposite - points of view, the ONLY way to be sure that a story that "sounds good" is right is to check what is checkable.

If checking is denied -- if it is systematically denied -- distrust -- not trust - is the reasonable response.

For many purposes, not even the New York Times can be sure of what it is told - - unless it checks. How often does checking occur? How often is checking denied? The NYT knows -- and the answer is that checking is often not done sufficiently for certainty -- and couldn't possibly be. Sometimes, checking is denied by "stonewalling" -- but much more often, and more insideously, checking doesn't happen when checking seems, somehow, "improper."

"Emperor's New Clothes" sequences, such as the missile defense boondoggle -- can occur as easily as they do because, often enough, checking is "just not done."

lchic - 08:26pm Mar 16, 2002 EST (#615 of 632)

The tragedy of Vietnam is now called Laos - carpet bombed at a whim - with land mines inwaiting for little feet.

The tragedy of Afghan is landmines ... 20million people share 10million landmines - that's one between two - wow!

almarst-2001 - 08:29pm Mar 16, 2002 EST (#616 of 632)

rshow55 3/16/02 7:48pm


You just found a good way to explain it.

One should wonder how come no one asks this question stright: "How come, 10 years after the end of the Cold War, the US faces (or pretends to face) far more enemies nd feels much less secure in a more dangerous world? And seems to suggest the same applyes to the Unified Europe?"

almarst-2001 - 08:36pm Mar 16, 2002 EST (#617 of 632)

A Newsnight investigation raised the possibility that there was a secret CIA project to investigate methods of sending anthrax through the mail which went madly out of control. -

lchic - 08:39pm Mar 16, 2002 EST (#618 of 632)


Bush isn't getting support :

An australian poll via Sunday Program tv 9 got results that were approx 86 against/ 14 only FOR .. involvement with Iraq

The UK army is jacking up :

    Britain's military leaders issued a stark warning to Tony Blair last night that any war against Iraq is doomed to fail and would lead to the loss of lives for little political gain. As the debate over whether to commit British troops alongside American forces intensified, the leaders urged 'extreme caution' over any moves towards war, saying servicemen faced being bogged down in a perilous open-ended commitment.,6903,669008,00.html

almarst-2001 - 08:43pm Mar 16, 2002 EST (#619 of 632)

Another case of "inverse" logic?

"Nothing is more important than the national security of our country. So nothing is more important than our defense budget," Bush said. "The price for freedom is high, but it's never too high as far as I'm concerned." -,2933,48007,00.html

rshow55 - 09:27pm Mar 16, 2002 EST (#620 of 632) Delete Message

Eisenhower became very concerned about patterns he'd seen, and warned against the military-industrial(political) complex in his FAREWELL ADDRESS of January 17, 1961

Everything Eisenhower was worried about has happened.

People with power are going to have to ask that some key things be checked.

Don't be certain it was, in every sense "out of control." almarst-2001 3/16/02 8:36pm

Things need to be checked.

If people, including leaders of nation states, get concerned enough - - concerned enough to ask for checking, in detail, of key facts - we'd be a lot safer. out.

lchic - 11:21pm Mar 16, 2002 EST (#621 of 632)

    we'd be a lot safer. out.
    ... of ... errr ... the web of lies ..

almarst-2001 - 11:30pm Mar 16, 2002 EST (#622 of 632)

Dreams are always so sweet. The discernment came too late. First, the USA withdrew from the ABM Treaty of 1972. Russia seemed to be indignant for some time, but admitted the defeat after all. Vladimir Putin was to have pricked up the ears. The matter is, the USA withdrew from the Treaty probably to see Russiaís reaction to such an audacious deed. The USA succeeded then, and no great resistance arose, that made America more free and easy.

USís next step was occupation of the former Soviet republics, that was performed without a shot. Under those conditions Russia understood perfectly well that its influence on the former Soviet republics had greatly reduced, that is why its protests were weak. When Americans obtained control over the regionís security, the Collective Security Treaty, as well as the Shanghai Five organization stopped their existence. Russia kept silent even then, although we were to have protested actively.

almarst-2001 - 11:34pm Mar 16, 2002 EST (#623 of 632)

"out of control."

The arson of the Reihstag?

More Messages Recent Messages (9 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