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 - 04:26pm Mar 17, 2003 EST (# 10121 of 10137)

rshow55 - 10:12am Mar 17, 2003 EST (# 10120 of ...) http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.ha0KaTr56F7.2452846@.f28e622/11665

"...Force is sometimes necessary, too. If Bush and Blair aren't exactly right on the time and place - they're right on that key principle.

And with that principle central to the disagreement - and a renegotiation of international law necessary if it is to work now - I think now may be a good time for action, everything considered..."

I think you're right, Robert, although few disagree now that twelve years ago would have been a far better time to prevent this problem. Unfortunately, neither the legal authority nor the moral grounds existed to do so at that time. Too bad. The coalition did act in a lawful way at that time by restraining itself. The result has been and is tragic.

We thought back then that Saddam would honor his surrender agreements and respect UN authority. What a mistake that was. It is the mistake that has lead us to the grave situation that we're all in today. Saddam is not a man of his word.

War does not increase death; but it certainly does reduce life. I'm saddened by the loss of life that is bound to occur on all sides in this war if Saddam does not step down.

I'm saddened at the personal cost to individual soldiers who will raise their hand against fellow humans to try to kill them. They, as all soldiers who have come before them, will have to learn to live with that.

I'm saddened at the loss of life that is likely to occur in other parts of the world as a result of Saddam's "world war". However, in my view, that was coming eventually anyway. Better sooner and on our terms than later and on Saddam's.

I'm saddened that the United Nations has been shown to be such an ineffective organization for solving tough problems. I think the fundamental flaw in that organization as it exists today is integral to the very notion of it's existance.

That flaw is the de facto denial that soverign interests of the member nations will always have higher priority than allegiance to the UN as an organization. For example, one member will not neglect the defense of it's own people because of a lack of uninimity in an organization that can't otherwise provide for that defense. Likewise, another nation wanting greater prestige in the world arena will try to use the organization as a tool to acheive that end...at the expense of the well-being of others. The need of sincere altruism that the foundatons of the UN idea rest upon is sandy soil indeed. Altruism is a luxury only affordable so long as the needs for survival are met.

The UN in its present form seems only to be useful as a public soapbox for debate. It has no power to resolve debates because it has no power. The perfect example is before us today: that whatever the UN does or does not do, it can do nothing to change the nature of Saddam's character or his actions.

Instead, opportunistic members are using that "hidden weakness" in the UN to try to coagulate their own new world order by dividing friends and trying for new alliances even as they destroy their old ones. By making Iraq a political football, it would seem some hope to make themselves "top dog" in the world rather than allowing the current "top dog" to remain so. Unfortunately, as is observed in real canine culture, there always has to be a top (alpha) dog. What seems forgotten is that being "top dog" is not an easy, popular or particularly rewarding task. That's because no matter how hard you try to do well, somebody always wants to pull you down...and become "top dog" themselves. It's not a job for the weak.

Maybe the UN should be renamed... "Pack of Nations".

lchic - 06:48pm Mar 17, 2003 EST (# 10122 of 10137)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

"" A group of international lawyers: The case for a legal attack [a second opinion ]

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,6142116%5E7583,00.html

March 18, 2003

IN their joint article published in The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald on February 26, a group of lawyers espoused the thesis that a US-led invasion of Iraq would violate international legal norms proscribing the use of force and international humanitarian law regulating the way in which war is conducted.

We believe that their views are based on legal and factual premises of doubtful validity, which could undermine rather than enhance the relevance and importance of international law in world politics.

Much of the present debate on Iraq is premised on the assumption, shared by the authors of the joint letter, that the Security Council has not already endorsed the use of force. An opposite and plausible case can and has been made on the basis of the wording of resolutions already adopted.

Resolution 1441 was carefully and deliberately framed in terms that could be read to permit the use of force. It was adopted under Chapter VII which allows the council to adopt mandatory action to deal with threats to the peace, breaches of the peace and acts of aggression.

The resolution says that Iraq remains "in breach of its material obligations" under previous Chapter VII resolutions, has a "final opportunity to comply" and failing compliance will "face serious consequences". It explicitly recalls Resolution 678 (1990), which authorised "all necessary means" to restore peace and security in the region and Resolution 687 (1991) which established the conditions for the cease-fire after the Gulf War.

By its terms, Resolution 1441 clearly viewed the use of force against Iraq not in isolation but rather as a continuation of measures taken in the wake of Saddam Hussein's illegal invasion of Kuwait.

Following his defeat in 1991, his regime was saved by a cease-fire granted on the strict condition that Hussein would account for and destroy every one of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, that he would cease repressing his people and that he would discontinue his support for international terrorism. Economic sanctions have already been in place for 12 years, but Iraq's "breach of its material obligations" continues despite "the final opportunity" provided by Resolution 1441. The "serious consequences" which he must thus face were understood to include the possibility of military force. .............

(15 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense