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.

mazza9 - 02:31pm Mar 28, 2003 EST (# 10645 of 10650)
"Quae cum ita sunt" Caesar's Gallic Commentaries

The improved Patriot Anti Aircraft/Missile batteries have been performing quite well.

Oops, I forgot. "THIS IS THE MISSILE DEFENSE FORUM." My post is definitely out of place.

Commondata, I posted the preamble to the UN charter awhIle back. Words have meanings and "feelings" about those words are meaningless! The UN was about preventing further wars and improving social, political and economic outcomes for all people. Castro, Saddam, Mugabe, Kim Il Jung and all the despots of the world are the failure of the UN to live up to its promise. A great deal of historical and philosophical study is needed to determine the cause. But in my opinion, the US is not the cause but the agent for the cure!

In 1939, many Americans felt that "America First" meant that we should stay out of foreign entanglements. Had the Japanese not bomber Pearl Harbor, I wonder if the French would have accepted NAZI rule and the whole world would be a better place today?

lchic - 02:31pm Mar 28, 2003 EST (# 10646 of 10650)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

EU speak out to condem Mulgabe !!!

Time for a pre-emtive precision palacial bombing on that 'sleeping' tyrant?

lchic - 02:34pm Mar 28, 2003 EST (# 10647 of 10650)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Monroe Doctrine 1823 - was covered on previous MD thread - http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/50.htm

jorian319 - 02:36pm Mar 28, 2003 EST (# 10648 of 10650)

"Time for a pre-emtive precision palacial bombing on that 'sleeping' tyrant?"

Years overdue. (just MHO)

almarst2003 - 02:37pm Mar 28, 2003 EST (# 10649 of 10650)

Commondata,

I agree completely with your stance.

Robert puzzles me. His position in my view does not stand any test of facts, reality or historical precedents. Nor, I am sorry to say, even common sense.

In general, the US-British policies for the last 2 centuries and up till this time, can't in any way or form inspire the image of benevolent powers placing the interests of other nation even on-pair with interests of their business-military-Christian fanatics-megalomaniacal politicians and false-patriots.

From the middle of the last century, the dominante economic power was centered on access to OIL. This problem became particularely acute for US since the fall of a domestic oil production and shock of the 1973 oil embargo.

Since end of a Cold War, the US defined a Euirope and China as a major potential competitors. Economically and by extention, politically. Japan is considered to be a non-treat since its total dependence on US-companies controlled oil supply.

Both, Europe and China tried to gain some energy independence using nuclear power, non-fussil sources, conservation etc. However, the major need for oil remained critical. The only non-Anglo-Saxon controlled sources are Iraq and Russia. Therefore, Europe, Russia and China invested heavily in investing, oil-exploration and developing the close ties with Iraq. Even Russia has enough domestic oil, its more expensive and more diffical to transport to the Central and Western Europe - the Russian primary market.

Its easy to see how important Iraqi oil is for both - US-Britain and Europe-Russia-China. The former need it in order to continue and extend their influence and dominant power for the most of this Century. The later equally need it to gain an economic and political independence.

The US made many attempts to win the Saddam's favor and swich aliance. However, after the Iran-Iraq war, he was forgotten and left high and dry to pay the huge loans for war expenses. This war hit Iraqi economy very severely, significantly degrading its status of a most advanced, powerful, end socio-economically modern nation in a region. Futhermore, Iraqi economy was undercut by Kuwat and Saudi Arabia - both Muslim fundamental, severely underdeveloped nations which saw a great danger to their way of life from a modern and powerfull Arab country. They intitiated the oil-price war to undercut the Iraqi revenues and slow down its after-war recovery. Kuwait was particularely hated by Saddam as it was cut of original Otttoman Empire Iraq by British. Amd because its oil fields are shared with Iraq. They pump from the exactly same geological reservouir.

The rest of the history was stated many times, including Gulf War I.

None of the officially stated reasons for this war seems credible to me. As all the talk about "renegotiated" world order, WMD, terrible dictator, liberation of Iraqi people etc. I have had an experience living in a USSR, in Israel and here in US. I learned quite a bit from my experience and observations. I don't buy the arguments for this war.

(1 following message)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense