[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 (709 previous messages)

lchic - 09:52am Mar 20, 2002 EST (#710 of 716)

Regulatory 'bodies' come to mind in relation to deaths and fights.

Deaths from drugs and deaths from low quality consumer goods have 'bodies' that regulate, set standards, look to quality, ask for improvement in design, ask for viable technical documentation to support products.

Deaths from nuclear attacks are well documented. Here something called 'war' is supposed to give permissions for killing.

lchic - 10:23am Mar 20, 2002 EST (#711 of 716)

    Tom Daschle - the most powerful Democrat in the country - has taken a few tentative steps this month towards restoring normal service as a voice for alternative ideas in the field of foreign and defence policy.
    He pointed out that the administration was focused on .....
    "There may be support, in general, for the president's request for defence, but somebody has got to ask tough questions," the South Dakota senator said. .......
    ..... The president's political adviser, Karl Rove, is said to oppose a war on Iraq before November, because he believes the heady sense of patriotic satisfaction from the Afghan war will still be thick in the air, and that there is a much higher chance of things going wrong for US forces in Iraq.
    The White House will have to decide how to synchronise its military and political agendas by then, and the Democrats will have to decide just what they are allowed to say.

Dash could talk about taxation raising war taxes, defense taxes.

Dash could talk about the income losses suffered by retirees with market crash of supposedly respectable blue chip companies -- the State will have to step in ... they'll need incomes for 20-30 years.

Dash could look to the real NEEDS of people - homeland and 'abroad-elsewhere land' ... and work out how money CAN do GOOD.

Bush is busy being
patted by Pa and Pa's boys!

lchic - 10:25am Mar 20, 2002 EST (#712 of 716)

These guys 'over-step themselves' so often :,7369,670832,00.html

lchic - 10:31am Mar 20, 2002 EST (#713 of 716)

These guys 'over-step themselves' so often :,7369,670832,00.html

    Mr Brandt said he discovered the "persistent" cookie - it keeps working until 2010 - and realised that the CIA "should not be doing this."
    He was particularly concerned because the reading room site allows users seeking documents to search for particular words.
    "The keywords you put in reveal an incredible amount about what you're looking for and what your interests are. It would be very, very tempting to track that kind of information," Mr Brandt said
The question here is ... if everybody uses reading room info .. maps etc .. then ... the cookies will be 'everywhere' ... how many people will they ask for (staff) to follow such a multitude of leads .... ie leading them NOWHERE. Who reviews tax payer allocation to this boondoggle department ?

lchic - 10:38am Mar 20, 2002 EST (#714 of 716)

US starts work on nuclear 'bunker-buster' bomb

smaller, super-hardened nuclear weapons

no guarantee that such bombs can be developed successfully and plans for them will rouse a storm of controversy

< Who cleans up the nuclear filth ??? ... Nobody's cleaned up LAOS carpet bombs yet .. >

lchic - 10:40am Mar 20, 2002 EST (#715 of 716)

Showalter made important point in this and following post rshow55 3/20/02 7:42am

rshow55 - 10:51am Mar 20, 2002 EST (#716 of 716) Delete Message

If a time comes when leaders of nation states WANT some key issues clarified -- and populations want these issues clarified -- then getting the necessary fighting to closure wouldn't be hard, or expensive, or very destructive.

It isn't a matter of "outlawing war" -- desirable as that dream might be. It is a matter of getting some reasonable controls on a situation that could not stand the light of day.

MD656 rshow55 3/17/02 8:24pm

"web of facts" need to be substituted for a "web of lies."

Facts, established solidly enough, can be powerful. Enron was dominant - deferred to -- respected -- on the basis of a pattern of ornate but blatant deceptions. But the lies were unstable - - and once some key facts solidified - with clarity - and with many of the facts presented together in space and time, so people could see -- the fraud collapsed. An admirable collection of facts and circumstances, contributing to that instability is here:

Some key aspects of the US military-industrial-complex deserve analogous scrutiny. For it to happen, for it to be news, world leaders are going to have to ask for checking.

Technical issues about missile defense would be a good start, because they are so technically clear, and lend themselves to umpired discussion to closure.

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Email to Sysop  Your Preferences

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  / Missile Defense

Enter your response, then click the POST MY MESSAGE button below.
See the
quick-edit help for more information.

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