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.

almarst-2001 - 11:46pm Mar 27, 2002 EST (#889 of 900)

"Way to Become Big Political Power" is to have a big stick and a big mouth.

lchic - 01:24am Mar 28, 2002 EST (#890 of 900)

In many first world economies:

The legislation is 'in place' for many groups, who may have considered themselves disadvantaged in the past, to enjoy 'equal opportunities' with groups who they once considered the dominant culture. (Northern Irish, Australian-Aboriginals, South Africans, Americans-US, Europeans)

Equity is achieved via Education and job promotion, and often there are within government systems the means to allow people to excel.

In the Middle East, were the Jews to move back within their borders they could get down to what they are good at - bankrolling development activities.

Any progress re Chechnya? http://www.watchdog.cz/index.php
Can the problems here relate simply to the recognition of a nation and their need for a sound economy ... the sooner this is in place .. the sooner the area will normalise - YES ?!

almarst-2001 - 10:02am Mar 28, 2002 EST (#891 of 900)

Downing Street was facing an embarrassing rift last night after its claims of a "marriage" of evil between Saddam Hussein and al-Qa'ida were contradicted by senior military officers.

They disputed an assertion by Tony Blair's spokesman that the Baghdad regime was supplying Osama bin Laden's terrorists with chemical and biological weapons.

Amid deep misgivings among senior military officers at the prospect of a new Gulf war, the Government stepped up its rhetoric against President Saddam. However, Number 10's claims of a close relationship between the two contradicts its own previous position that there was no evidence of a link between al-Qa'ida and Baghdad. It will further anger Labour backbenchers who fear Tony Blair is preparing the ground to join a US-led attack on Iraq.

The Downing Street statement came a day after Geoff Hoon, the Secretary of State for Defence, caused widespread consternation by insisting the US and Britain would not need a United Nations mandate to launch military strikes on Iraq.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=278506

What can I say to Mr. Blair, other then "The boss (GWB) is always right";)

almarst-2001 - 10:05am Mar 28, 2002 EST (#892 of 900)

Russian troops in Chechnya - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/03/27/wchech27.xml&sSheet=/news/2002/03/27/ixworld.html

Outraged by poor pay, incompetent commanders and antiquated equipment, a growing number of soldiers from specially trained Interior Ministry units are threatening to disobey orders to serve in the rebel republic.

almarst-2001 - 10:15am Mar 28, 2002 EST (#893 of 900)

Think Tanks in a Time of Crisis - http://www.fair.org/extra/0203/think_tanks.html

" think tanks associated with military or foreign policy issues were highly visible after September 11, often receiving about half their citations after the airliner attacks. The conservative Center for Strategic and International Studies received 51 percent of its citations in this time period, while the centrist Council of Foreign Relations got 47 percent. Likewise, 48 percent of the progressive Center for Defense Information’s mentions were post=September 11, although these mentions were less than a third of those received by CSIS or CFR. In electronic media, the difference was even more stark, with CFR receiving 407 citations after the attacks, CSIS getting 310 and CDI only 48.

The Institute for Policy Studies, another progressive think tank dealing with foreign policy issues, fared little better, receiving 57 citations from the electronic media citations after September 11. Given that in times of conflict, many citizens choose the immediacy of the electronic media over newspapers, it’s troubling that these media chose to constrict rather than expand the national debate; new questions apparently required few new answers. "

--- Just tell me what is "true" and I will find you an "expert" to prove it ---;)

almarst-2001 - 10:18am Mar 28, 2002 EST (#894 of 900)

Fear & Favor 2001: How Power Shapes the News - http://www.fair.org/reports/ff2001.html

"Fear & Favor is FAIR’s annual review of incidents that reflect the range of pressures on reporters to use something other than journalistic judgment in deciding what goes in the news and what gets left out. The year 2001 presented special challenges in this regard. The horrific September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and the ensuing declaration by the Bush administration of an open-ended "war on terrorism," meant incredible pressure on the press corps to present U.S. actions and policy in the best light; incidents of outright censorship occurred, and even more self-censorship, as many outlets confused independent inquiry with a lack of patriotism. "

almarst-2001 - 10:26am Mar 28, 2002 EST (#895 of 900)

While Britain and other member states ponderously plod towards agreement on the EU's eastern enlargement, the Bush administration is steaming full speed ahead with the reunification of Europe - under US auspices, on US terms, and primarily for US purposes. - http://www.guardian.co.uk/bush/story/0,7369,675229,00.html

(5 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense