[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 (871 previous messages)

rshow55 - 02:59pm Mar 27, 2002 EST (#872 of 886) Delete Message

If you do careful arithmetic, and a competent job - - "everything" will be quite sufficient -- and inexpensive, as well.

You'd think that the information in the March 13 OpEd Advertorial , along with the fine references from good sources that accompany it,, would destroy the "Star Wars" boondoggle. 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.

But at the same time -- it seems to me (maybe I'm too much of an optimist) that conditions for real peace, and a much more sensible world, may be taking shape - - some of them due to the work of The New York Times . . . a paper I'm proud to take, including work done by Thomas Friedman - - who may have facilitated some reasonable, hopeful responses on the part of Arab leaders.

lchic - 03:13pm Mar 27, 2002 EST (#873 of 886)

The term 'Castles in the air' comes to mind.

lchic - 03:22pm Mar 27, 2002 EST (#874 of 886)

Robert Fiske (living treasure - journalist) (transcript soon)

Peace and the 'mind' ...
Fiske made the point there has been no 'unity' within or between Arab States for much of the past century : The 'TALKS' wouldn't suceed : his feeling --
America isn't making much effort.

mazza9 - 03:26pm Mar 27, 2002 EST (#875 of 886)
Louis Mazza


Thanks for the kudos. I was just posting a reported "fact" vis a vis the ABL. It is these reported facts that should form the basis of the "umpiring" that you espouse.


lchic - 03:36pm Mar 27, 2002 EST (#876 of 886)

Robert FISK

A nuke in time saves nine - ?

rshow55 - 03:54pm Mar 27, 2002 EST (#877 of 886) Delete Message

mazza9 3/27/02 3:26pm . . . it seems to me that a lot of things are converging -- and doing so in ways that ought to be strongly in the interest of the United States.

When things are complicated enough, truth is our only hope of finding our ways to decent solutions. That means we have to find ways to keep people from "filter(ing) out information that might undermine their views.

You could argue that I've been moving slowly since the time of the following postings.

Challenge, questions, and invokation of the need for force:
MD728 rshow55 3/20/02 7:58pm ... MD729 rshow55 3/20/02 8:32pm
MD730 rshow55 3/20/02 8:37pm

MD764 gisterme 3/22/02 12:34pm

Comment and response:
MD780 manjumicha2001 3/23/02 1:28am ... MD783-784 rshow55 3/23/02 10:15am
MD84 rshow55 3/2/02 10:52am

Perhaps I have been moving slowly, but the reason is that I've felt that things have been moving toward a situation where a lot of things could get solved.

A key reason to want technical answers to questions about missile defense is that those answers would move toward larger answers to questions the whole world needs, and is coming to know it needs:

. What is the real national interest of the United States? Not just the interest of the military-industrial complex.


. Can the United States be honest enough and trustworthy enough about what it asks for, and agrees to, so that its interests can be reasonably, efficiently, justly accomodated by the rest of the world?

The technical issues of "missile defense" are a good place to start -- because those technical answers are so clear -- and answering them forces these larger questions to be adressed.

I think people are getting interested - not just because missile defense is important, but because we are now in a situation where -- if we just faced some things -- both the United States, and the rest of the world, could be both safer and more prosperous.

For future reference, I've reposted some things I had posted for a long time on the previous MD thread, about my background, from #272-279 Pscywar, Casablanca -- and terror

almarst-2001 - 04:07pm Mar 27, 2002 EST (#878 of 886)

China - US should stop interfering in Taiwan issue -

To this I would add the following:

Before the "enlightened" West usurpates the position of the "teacher", "cop", "judge" and the "executor" of the rest of the nations, it would be helpful for it to rectify its own "small" inconveniences. For US - to settle the issue of slavery. For US and Australia - the compensation of the Native population, suffered from real GENOCID. Those two and Canada should never forget whoes land they are occupying. For Britain, France, Spain, Belgium and Danemark - the fate of the lands and the nations they merselesly exploited for hundreds of years. For Germany - the GENOCID and war crimes they commited in Europe.

After that, may be, they may claim to have any authority to lecture the other nations on their internal affairs, let along intervene.

More Messages Recent Messages (8 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