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.

gisterme - 11:44pm Mar 15, 2003 EST (# 10029 of 10056)

rshow55 - 10:56pm Mar 15, 2003 EST (# 10023 of ...) http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.x1zsatUD52D.2134432@.f28e622/11568

"...the UN is indispensible..."

Is not.

"... - the US CANNOT supplant it - it doesn't have enough backing from enough people in enough places in the world..."

The US will not supplant the UN. The UN will simply lose all respect because it will have shown the world just how useless it is. It has been a good attempt at moving on from the League of Nations format; but it still falls far short of being able to bring to pass the high ideals of it's charter. It has instead become a breeding place for international corruption, its members motivated by the prospect of payola from the more prosperous nations. The demise of the UN, in my view, sooner or later will be the result of entirely darwenian forces. It will no doubt be supplanted by something better.

"...The US needs to be a careful and tactful Zeuss..."

The US does not need to be a "Zeus" at all. It does need to do what's necessary to protect its own people. And when doing that helps the lot of others...that's a good thing.

"...The UN is needed - and the US needs the respect of the world..."

The UN is no barometer of the amount of respect the US has in the world nor is the UN in any way necessary for the US to have respect. The US had plenty of respect in the world before the UN existed and still has great respect throught the world in spite of all the conniving that has gone on in the UN to try to change that.

"...If you represent the Bush administration (something difficult to doubt) - you ought to consider how your posts read to others. You read like an irresponsible, cocksure bully..."

Sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me, Robert. :-) I don't represent the Bush administration nor do I express the opinions of anybody but myself as you well know.

But since I don't represent the Bush administration, by the logic of your own staement, I must not need to consider how my posts read. :-) Thanks for pointing that out, Robert.

Rant, rave and bluster all you like, rshow, it won't do you any good.

I'll leave it to others to decide how you read. ;-)

almarst2003 - 11:46pm Mar 15, 2003 EST (# 10030 of 10056)

"President Bush should be in charge of marshaling the power for this war," says the Middle East expert Stephen P. Cohen, "and Tony Blair should be in charge of the vision for which that power should be applied."

There is a clear problem with a "wision". Even for poor Tony. Try to explain that US needs to take over Iraqi OIL to make the "OLD" Europe completely under US-British energy companies control. So they will not think about a Great Common Europe rivaled the US economically and politically. And this damn rising Euro!

almarst2003 - 11:49pm Mar 15, 2003 EST (# 10031 of 10056)

"And when doing that helps the lot of others...that's a good thing."

After Enron, there are quite less of those who will be helped.

almarst2003 - 11:53pm Mar 15, 2003 EST (# 10032 of 10056)

"It has instead become a breeding place for international corruption, its members motivated by the prospect of payola from the more prosperous nations."

They clearly faled the test conducted by undercover COP dressed as US:)

rshow55 - 11:55pm Mar 15, 2003 EST (# 10033 of 10056)
Can we do a better job of finding truth? YES. Click "rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have done and worked for on this thread.

"...If you represent the Bush administration (something difficult to doubt) - you ought to consider how your posts read to others. You read like an irresponsible, cocksure bully..."

That's certainly the way it reads to me. And I've been of the opinion, for a long time - that you're VERY close to GWB. Every once in a while - we have this spasm of denial from you - but somehow you keep posting here - and I do hope you're not GWB - because if you are, then Krugman's Queeg piece certainly does fit ! http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/14/opinion/14KRUG.html

I think much of your posting is often stunningly dishonorable, second rate stuff (just my opinion of course) - I think the United States of America is besmirched by your work - and I if I've said anything bad about you in the past - well I can't recall, just now, anything I'd take back.

(23 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense