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.

rshow55 - 12:18pm Mar 28, 2003 EST (# 10635 of 10636)
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.

What people say in public matters - and Tony Blair said here that the issue was that force as a real end point was being denied:

The following is the text of a news conference with U.S. President Bush, Jose Manuel Durao Barroso, Prime Minister of Portugal, Tony Blair, Prime Minister of Britain and Jose Maria Aznar, Prime Minister of Spain, as recorded by eMediaMillWorks. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/16/international/16IRAQ-TEXT.html

BLAIR: . . .

"And I think it's worth just returning to the key point, which is our responsibility to uphold the will of the United Nations set out in Resolution 1441 last November. And for four and a half months now, we have worked hard to get Saddam to cooperate fully, unconditionally, as that resolution demanded.

"Even some days ago, we were prepared to set out clear tests that allowed us to conclude whether he was cooperating fully or not, with a clear ultimatum to him if he refused to do so.

"And the reason we approached it in that way is that this is what we agreed in Resolution 1441: This was his final opportunity. He had to disarm unconditionally. Serious consequences would follow if he failed to do so.

"And this is really the impasse that we have, because some say there should be no ultimatum, no authorization of force in any new U.N. resolution; instead, more discussion in the event of noncompliance.

"But the truth is that without a credible ultimatum authorizing force in the event of noncompliance, then more discussion is just more delay, with Saddam remaining armed with weapons of mass destruction and continuing a brutal, murderous regime in Iraq.

"And this game that he is playing is, frankly, a game that he has played over the last 12 years. Disarmament never happens, but instead the international community is drawn into some perpetual negotiation. Gestures designed to divide the international community, but never real and concrete cooperation leading to disarmament.

"And there is not a single person on the Security Council that doubts the fact he is not fully cooperating today. Nobody, even those who disagree with the position that we have outlined, is prepared to say there is full cooperation, as 1441 demanded.

"Not a single interview has taken place outside of Iraq, even though 1441 provided for it. Still no proper production or evidence of the destruction of, for example, just to take one example, the 10,000 liters of anthrax that the inspectors just a week ago said was unaccounted for.

"And that is why it is so important that the international community at this time gives a strong and unified message. And I have to say that I really believe that had we given that strong message some time ago, Saddam might have realized that the games had to stop.

"So now we have reached the point of decision. And we make a final appeal for there to be that strong, unified message on behalf of the international community that lays down a clear ultimatum to Saddam that authorizes force if he continues to defy the will of the whole of the international community set out in 1441.

"We will do all we can in the short time that remains to make a final round of contacts, to see whether there is a way through this impasse.

"But we are in the final stages. Because after 12 years of failing to disarm him, now is the time when we have to decide.

. . .

"As President Bush was just saying to you a moment or two ago, it is the people of Iraq who are the primary victims of Saddam: the thousands of children that die needlessly every year; the people locked up in his prisons or executed simply for showing disagreement with the regime; a country that is potentially prosperous is reduced to poverty; 60 percent of the population reliant on food aid.

"And what we say is that we will protect Iraq's territorial integrity. We will support representative government th

(1 following message)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense