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.

lchic - 09:48am Mar 19, 2003 EST (# 10202 of 10215)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Trust I'm not distracting from

http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.Lo8mam5u5RM.140995@.f28e622/11742

almarst2003 - 11:39am Mar 19, 2003 EST (# 10203 of 10215)

" Do you know enough to justify going to war with Iraq?"

The only important thing to know is that Iraq has a second largest OIL reseves in a World and those are NOT under control of US-British companies.

rshow55 - 12:08pm Mar 19, 2003 EST (# 10204 of 10215)
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.

Almarst - it isn't that simple - and with so many watching - the war will probably not be a good business proposition for the United States - judged on narrow terms. But it is necessary to get some patterns of international order operational - and given the way so many people (including you) use words - sometimes there DO have to be fights.

When things can't be sorted out one way - they must be sorted out another. Attempts at a negotiated settlement went on a long time - and got things focused to fundamentals. The current rules of the UN Charter have to be subject to revision - and the renegotiation is going on now.

I made a posting on March 23, 2001 - as part of the "Putin Briefing" linked in 9011-9013 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.Lo8mam5u5RM.140995@.f28e622/10537 that I wish you would read.

http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md01000s/md1409_1418.htm

There's a lot to be sorted out. And there is no solution unless some facts get checked to closure. That will take some decisions from leaders of nation states - because checking facts to closure - even simple technical ones - is effectively prohibited by Treaty of Westphalia standards.

We're in a time where some exception handling has to be negotiated into being - and where some basic things about stability have to be sorted out.

I read your postings this morning, especially almarst2003 - 05:56am Mar 19, 2003 EST (# 10190 .)

Arrogance, bullying, blackmail, demagogy, despotism and criminal warmongering are the vocabulary in the diplomatic dictionary used by Washington http://english.pravda.ru/world/2003/03/19/44604.html

and almarst2003 - 05:58am Mar 19, 2003 EST (# 10191 )

Bush, Blair and supporters will be taken before International Criminal Court http://english.pravda.ru/war/2003/03/18/44545.html

- -

We'll be a while before we have a workable international law. A trial in-absentia before the International Criminal Court might be and interesting thing. Of something analogous - well funded - on the internet - for all to see. I'd be prepared to be a consultant in Bush's defense, on some very basic points - though I think he and the organizations he heads are wrong on many things.

In a world where it isn't even possible to get agreement on clear issues of engineering fact - it seems that is rather too ambitious - putting the matter mildly - to put Bush and Blair on trail in the flesh. Sometimes, in the real world, size does matter - and has to.

There are problems with ideas about frames of reference - notions of consistency - reasons for exception handling - that need to be more widely clarified - and fought to agreement.

It seems to me, just now, that a number of things are going well, everything considered. That is, considering the stupidity, bull-headedness - and duplicity of so many of the players involved. But we have to get past the patterns of the Treaty of Westphalia.

If, in those terms, Bush is in violation of rules (and I have no doubt that he is) there is something wrong with the rules. They have to be renegotiated. We are on historically unprecedented ground - and there is plenty to fear - but a great deal to hope for, too.

(11 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense