[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 (900 previous messages)

lchic - 11:17am Mar 28, 2002 EST (#901 of 913)

Paul Robeson ... has anybody in America 'heard' of HIM?

Robeson had a one particular bad habit - he spoke the truth ... didn't 'know his place' ... and spent much of his life in exile ... and made his mark OUTSIDE the USA ... and is respected by 'the world'.

mAzzA i saw much of the Oscar ceremony ... if you can find one reference there to Robeson .. put it on the board! Any acknowledgements from America would be of interest. (I'll check)

Like every true artist, I have longed to see my talent contributing in an unmistakably clear manner to the cause of humanity." PAUL ROBESON

The closest he got to an Oscar was working with 'Oscar Micheaux'.

lchic - 11:27am Mar 28, 2002 EST (#902 of 913)

Robeson made it through the ether ... obviously curious to read rshow55 3/28/02 11:11am .. I wonder what Robeson would have had to say - here:

    ? 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?

lchic - 11:38am Mar 28, 2002 EST (#903 of 913)

Institute for war and peace :

mazza9 - 02:40pm Mar 28, 2002 EST (#904 of 913)
Louis Mazza


I attended Rutgers from 1961 to 1965. I graduated with a BA in History and Political Science and and a deep appreciation of for life and times of Paul Robeson and that other what was his name.. Oh yeah.. Martin Luther King. Several years ago I provided a dramatic reading at a B Daltons bookstore for Black History Month. I recited Martin's "I've Got a Dream" speech and it still gives me chills.

We've completed Black History Month and I believe that it is sad that Paul Robeson and Max Ingram are slighted. All Americans should be familiar with the efforts of these two men.


gisterme - 02:41pm Mar 28, 2002 EST (#905 of 913)

almarst-2001 3/22/02 12:54pm

"...My point is - the MD will cause the other nations to seek a countermeasures. Not neceserely symmetrical or conventional. The end result will be less security for all.

Other nations? You can't mean Russia, because the MD system we're building wouldn't stop them for a minute if they wanted to attack. Perhaps you mean China? Well, they're already helping other folks develop ballistic missiles that the defense can stop. North Korea, Iraq or Iran? They're already working as hard as they can to get ICBMs. They're not responding to our develpment of a missile defense. We're responding to their development of ICBMs. That "secret" arms race has been going on for some time.

...As I pointed out before, the MD changes the easily calculated MAD into the much less predictable computation having to account the unknown real efficiency of MD. It will be up to the other nation's judgement to select a reliable countermeasure.

Almarst, the MAD paradigm only applies between the US and Russia and will continue for some time whether or not a missile defense is develped by the US. Those are the only two nations on earth that could completly annihilate each other. MAD has never applied to the folks that the missile defense is intended to stop. The Cold War is over and the world context has changed. Didn't you know?

"...The MD will cause the death of strategic arms verification and control regime even among disciplined and espectable nations. Not to mention the small secretive ones..."

I say nyet to that. Cold war strategic arms agreements are what they are and exist between the US and Russia. The small secretive nations are already doing all they can to get WMD and ballistic missiles to deliver them. Building a missile defense against the day that they get them will not accelerate their efforts at all.

"...It will cause a secretive strategic WMD arms race, including the one in Space...

Again, you're comparing apples to oranges. Russia and the US are the only true space-faring nations today. Russia is not the direct threat addressed by MD development. They're the only ones who could conceivably engage in a "space" arms race right now; but the Russians could already wipe us out if they wanted to. If they want to waste resources on a "space" arms race, well, then they're welcome to it; but, why would they do that? They're not our enemy. However, they are vulnerable to the same missile-armed thugs as everybody else. I'll say again that I think before this is all over both Russia and the US will be cooperating on missile defense development and deployment.

It will be a very long time before Iraq, Iran, North Korea ( the real threats ) or even China have the resources or technology necessary to wage an arms race in space. It may not be long before they can target a ballistic missile on a US, Russian or other European city.

Whatever the case may be, MAD is a term that only applies to Russia and the US. MD develpment is intended to address current threats.

rshow55 - 03:39pm Mar 28, 2002 EST (#906 of 913) Delete Message

Mazza, sometimes you do make me smile. . . .

Gisterme , you've made that case, and cases like it, before -- have you noticed how negative a response you're getting to such arguments? From Russians, and many, many other people.

Almarst is distrustful and angry -- and it is easy for me to see why.

As for "real threats" -- not so many people outside the United States seem convinced -- nor is there any reason to think that MD can work -- while diplomatic approaches, and other approaches that the US discourages, look like they could.

More Messages Recent Messages (7 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