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.

tlawrens - 04:09pm Mar 27, 2003 EST (# 10572 of 10581)
It is the business of the future to be dangerous...The major advances in civilization are processes that all but wreck the societies in which they occur.

There are many points of view across the world over the situation in Iraq. It appears, however, that regardless of a particular view, most people base their passion on wanting to help the people of Iraq through liberation and/or relief of human suffering. Rhetoric is consuming resources and energy that can also be applied to helping the Iraqi people with basic needs. I would like to think that anti-war, pro-peace, anti-Hussein, pro-coalition or whatever your stance, most people are pro-relief of human suffering. Even members of the United Nations have agreed that regardless of a stance before coalition action, most would be involved in some way with humanitarian work in Iraq.

While I believe in the freedom of expression, words are easy to create so in addition to speaking your mind, make a tangible effort to help the people of Iraq. Rather than take a day off without pay to rally for or against coalition action, stay at work and donate the funds you earn that day to a charity supporting the people of Iraq. If instead you decide to take a vacation or sick day in order to participate in a public gathering, you are still getting paid for that day and you can make a sacrifice of funds for those ultimately who are affected.

So you got 10,000 people to show for a rally? If each would donate just $20, that would send $200,000 to directly aid the people of Iraq. Did the press undercount and there were really 100,000 gathered? That's $2,000,000 that can be used to feed, house and clothe refugees. Take the idea of a day's wage instead of $20 and that $200,000 sum becomes $600,000 or more while that $2,000,000 figure grows to $6,000,000 or more. Donate that much money and people will give greater consideration to your views.

Maybe you are posting in Internet forums for or against coalition actions or other aspects of the Iraq situation. You too can put money where your mouth is by asking all involved to put up $1 per post in a donation to relief organizations. That way, no matter what side of an argument you take, the end result will be progress in finding a common ground through assisting the people of Iraq. At $1 a post, people might also put a little more thought into each response. While there is no way to guarantee someone will make the donation, at least asking will give further credibility to your conviction.

almarst2003 - 05:18pm Mar 27, 2003 EST (# 10573 of 10581)

tlawrens - 04:09pm Mar 27, 2003 EST (# 10572 of 10572)

Why not to donate just one cruse missile - that's about $1 million! In addition, you will save on the damage and, may be, even couple of lives.

almarst2003 - 05:23pm Mar 27, 2003 EST (# 10574 of 10581)

tlawrens - 04:09pm Mar 27, 2003 EST (# 10572 of 10573)

The UN charter requires the occupying forces to be responsible for the well being of the population. May be Bush should consider some of the tax reductions to pay for the result of his war? For the effort to force him to do so, I would not hesitate to put more then $20.

tlawrens - 05:26pm Mar 27, 2003 EST (# 10575 of 10581)
It is the business of the future to be dangerous...The major advances in civilization are processes that all but wreck the societies in which they occur.

I fear you've missed my point.

almarst2003 - 05:26pm Mar 27, 2003 EST (# 10576 of 10581)

"Saddam's torture chambers rival those of Dr. Mengele"

Somehow it did not bother US up untill 12 years ago.

almarst2003 - 05:34pm Mar 27, 2003 EST (# 10577 of 10581)

tlawrens - 05:26pm Mar 27, 2003 EST (# 10575 of 10576)

I think I understand your point. I just think its bad to get the criminals off hook for their direct responsibilities. Those who where rushing to kill and destroy have to take into account the consequences. We must not make their life easier. The only way I would reconsider it if Bush-Blair would ask the nations to help them out of the abiss. Nothing less then a public appology!

(4 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense