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.

fredmoore - 08:08pm Mar 29, 2003 EST (# 10726 of 10762)

Almarst ...

Due to the lunacy of the Iraqi regime, if you put things back as they were you will have millions perish in silence over the next 12 years. Contrast this with thousands killed in the current conflict under the keen eye of CNN and BBC .... coming right at you on a TV near you.

It is easy to say, 'put things back as they were', it takes away the immediacy of the televised anguish, but it ISN'T right. Also there is no third way when you are dealing with a megalomaniac dictator, sooner or later his will to kill will manifest itself..

Your rage seems to me misdirected, being caught up in the current war. Your rage would be more appropriately directed at Corporate Globalisation rather than taking cheap potshots at the US in a war where scenarios are changing form hour to hour. In your recent PETITION you support ideals which are neither capitalism (globalisation) nor socialism. Let me say that socialism has failed and capitalism has big problems but there is NO other system that has come down the watershed of history and is able to stand up straight. It is naive and childish to ignore the complexities of the diversity of human endeavour and ingenuity which has brought us to that extremely limited range of options. Here too there is no third way. The best we can hope for is to raise the awareness of masses of people to an extent where capitalism is modified to better reflect a sustainable outcome for the majority of citizens. At this stage of the evolution of civilisation , any third way will take time and work .... and yes, maybe innocent lives as well. That is how history works, despite our finest sensibilities..

A positive outcome will require much study and in particular innovative technological advances in many fields. Petitions such as the one you propose tend to delude people into thinking that a few politicians are responsible for all our ills and if we protest en mass they will yield to our sublime will. If only life were that simple.

Not having the courage to face up to the ugly reality of choosing a least damage option in Iraq does not assist in coherently raising the Gestalt to achieve necessary changes in capitalism.

In simple terms, I don't think you have put enough effort into analysing the historical basis of who we are, where we are headed and how to find a workable formula for the greatest common good. I fear if you had your way we would all be condemned to 'year zero' like the Cambodians under POL POT.

almarst2003 - 08:22pm Mar 29, 2003 EST (# 10727 of 10762)

I have a feeling the US public views overseas American wars as sport event where their highly equiped superior team beats the hell out of small durty barbarians.

Fiew in US cares what those barbarians are fighting for, their culture, background, traditions, history. In fact, even location.

As long as they are bitten severely enough for the test of cheering audience with minimal sucrifices - who cares?

And, to avoid the feeling of guilt about cold-blooded murder and in-public rape of a small and weak by a huge and powerful, the masterfull corporate mass-media prepeares the script of dehumanisation of so called enemy in a best traditions of Holliwood.

This is the real unlearned lesson of Vietnam.

What motivates the American soldiers to come thousends miles away from home bringing the death and destruction and even risking their own life? The service duty? The salary? The fear? The search of excitment? The indifference? The xenofobia? The brain-washed induced sence of absolute rightness? The sense of invulnorability? The cultivated blind aggressiveness?

What happens if they will face a deadly determination of a people who are fighting for their homeland? For their pride and dignity? For their families left in ruined homes? For what they believe is the future of their nation?

One of the US generals complained the war is not progressing according to their war-game scenario. Could it be for the reason the simulated enemy was modeled based on a behevier of on American serviceman?

jorian319 - 08:30pm Mar 29, 2003 EST (# 10728 of 10762)

What happens if they will face a deadly determination of a people who are fighting for their homeland?

Not likely. In every report I've heard of an interview with Iraqi citizens where an enforcer of the regime was not present, people there not only can't wait to get rid of Saddam and his murdering henchmen, they are willing and eager to suffer great harm in the process.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/3/28/15447.shtml

Safely over the border, they asked the driver "what he felt about the regime and the threat of an aerial bombardment." He surprised them, saying: "The Americans don’t want to bomb civilians. They want to bomb the government and Saddam’s palaces. We want America to bomb Saddam. All Iraqi people want this war."

almarst2003 - 08:56pm Mar 29, 2003 EST (# 10729 of 10762)

Four miles into Basra, angry Iraqis stare at me in disbelief (Filed: 30/03/2003) - http://www.dailytelegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/03/30/wbas30.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/03/30/ixnewstop.html

Across no mans land in Basra, Olga Craig encounters the desperate but hostile people of the city whose only word of greeting seems to be: 'Enemy'

(33 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense