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 - 04:06pm Mar 28, 2003 EST (# 10665 of 10668)
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 , a coherent and rational explanation for US policy, based on oil, might be comforting. Have you considered the possibility that the Bush administration is delusional - and as messed up deep down as they appear to be on the surface? A reason I've been pushing for getting things checked to closure, is that it seems to me that a lot of US policy is a muddled, venal, screwed up, and crazy as a lot of US Missile Defense efforts.

I'm posting a piece from Maureen Dowd that may come closer to an answer to "why the war" than you may think - of than anyone would like:

"The case for war has been incoherent due to overlapping reasons conservatives want to get Saddam."

The Xanax Cowboy By MAUREEN DOWD http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/09/opinion/09DOWD.html

"WASHINGTON — You might sum up the president's call to war Thursday night as "Message: I scare."

"As he rolls up to America's first pre-emptive invasion, bouncing from motive to motive, Mr. Bush is trying to sound rational, not rash. Determined not to be petulant, he seemed tranquilized.

"But the Xanax cowboy made it clear that Saddam is going to pay for 9/11. Even if the fiendish Iraqi dictator was not involved with Al Qaeda, he has supported "Al Qaeda-type organizations," as the president fudged, or "Al Qaeda types" or "a terrorist network like Al Qaeda."

"We are scared of the world now, and the world is scared of us. (It's really scary to think we are even scaring Russia and China.)

"Bush officials believe that making the world more scared of us is the best way to make us safer and less scared. So they want a spectacular show of American invincibility to make the wicked and the wayward think twice before crossing us.

"Of course, our plan to sack Saddam has not cowed the North Koreans and Iranians, who are scrambling to get nukes to cow us.

"It still confuses many Americans that, in a world full of vicious slimeballs, we're about to bomb one that didn't attack us on 9/11 (like Osama); that isn't intercepting our planes (like North Korea); that isn't financing Al Qaeda (like Saudi Arabia); that isn't home to Osama and his lieutenants (like Pakistan); that isn't a host body for terrorists (like Iran, Lebanon and Syria).

"I think the president is genuinely obsessed with protecting Americans and believes that smoking Saddam will reduce the chances of Islamic terrorists' snatching catastrophic weapons. That is why no cost — shattering the U.N., NATO, the European alliance, Tony Blair's career and the U.S. budget — is too high.

"Even straining for serenity, Mr. Bush sounded rattled at moments: "My job is to protect America, and that is exactly what I'm going to do. . . . I swore to protect and defend the Constitution; that's what I swore to do. I put my hand on the Bible and took that oath, and that's exactly what I am going to do."

"But citing 9/11 eight times in his news conference was exploitative, given that the administration concedes there is no evidence tying Iraq to the 9/11 plot. By stressing that totem, Mr. Bush tried to alchemize American anger at Al Qaeda into support for smashing Saddam.

"William Greider writes in The Nation, "As a bogus rallying cry, `Remember 9/11' ranks with `Remember the Maine' of 1898 for war with Spain or the Gulf of Tonkin resolution of 1964. . . ." A culture more besotted with inane "reality" TV than scary reality is easily misled. Mr. Greider pointed out that in a Times/CBS News survey, 42 percent believe Saddam was personally responsible for the attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, and in an ABC News poll, 55 percent believe he gives direct support to Al Qaeda.

"The case for war has been incoherent due to overlapping reasons conservatives want to get Saddam.

"The president wants to avenge his father, and please his base by changing th

lchic - 04:08pm Mar 28, 2003 EST (# 10666 of 10668)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

A gps bomb has to be devised that can enter the right ear and leave by the left ... and yet take out all that extraneous guff from an outdated culture that's keeping the Arab world at the bottom of the world development pile - restoring the mind ... without damaging 'the head'!

Rummy's probably working on it!

(2 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense