New York Times on the Web Forums
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
(900 previous messages)
- 11:17am Mar 28, 2002 EST (#901
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
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 http://www.myhero.com/hero.asp?hero=p_robeson
The closest he got to an Oscar was working with 'Oscar Micheaux'.
- 11:27am Mar 28, 2002 EST (#902
Robeson made it through the ether ... obviously curious to read
3/28/02 11:11am .. I wonder what Robeson would have had to say -
? What is the real national interest of the United
States? Not just the interest of the military-industrial
? 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?
- 11:38am Mar 28, 2002 EST (#903
Institute for war and peace : http://www.iwpr.net/index.pl?top_about.html
- 02:40pm Mar 28, 2002 EST (#904
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 guy..now 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
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.
- 02:41pm Mar 28, 2002 EST (#905
"...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
"...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
- 03:39pm Mar 28, 2002 EST (#906
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.
New York Times on the Web Forums