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 - 09:50am Apr 1, 2003 EST (# 10895 of 10900)
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.

A key point about stability, and a story connected to Nash's background, mine, is in 4530-4531 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.CBY4ajzT6NK.2712333@.f28e622/5722

As of now, we'd be quite close to world stability - on terms greatly to the advantage of people of good will all over the world -- with military technology and human patterns in place -- if we didn't have bombing.

No one would question US dominance if there was no bombing (or if Americans understood bombing to carry the expenses and exposures that it carried for most of the 20th century.) But the idea that the United States could kill, at a distance, with complete impunity would be gone.

If that idea was gone - we'd be pretty close to the conditions a stable peace requires --- now.

If missiles were as agile as bats or birds -- bombing would be obsolete.

We ought to anticipate that now , and shape our military assumptions according to a reality that is certain to come. http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/352

The security of the US is at stake. And decency.

And a lot of money.

The US military industrial complex is making trillion dollar procurement errors - based on mistakes that can be easily checked. That ought to be expensive to the people making the mistakes "from a career point of view" if competent people in NATO countries and elsewhere were watching, and insisted on getting key facts and relations straight.

almarst2003 - 11:34am Apr 1, 2003 EST (# 10896 of 10900)

Robert,

You still may believe Friedman. But here what I say for the record:

This war was LOST even BEFORE it actually started.

The longer it will go, the greater LOSS it will be. In human lives, World wide economy, terrorism, arms race, World-wide DISORDER, discreditation of International Law and Order as we knew it, substituted by Law of preventive Jungle, American liberties lost, and, may be most importantly - AMERICAN CREDIBILITY AND IMAGE.

As for the actual conflict on the ground, I see no way US-British troops taking over Baghdad without leveling it to the ground. Siege is not an option either under the 120 degrees sun with supply lines 200 miles long.

ergomatic - 11:37am Apr 1, 2003 EST (# 10897 of 10900)

If MD/SDI doesn't (or can't) work, then what is its real purpose?

dccougar - 11:51am Apr 1, 2003 EST (# 10898 of 10900)
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts.

Alarmist, do you think putting your posts in bold type will give them more credibility? I would say this annoying practice is not working at all.

You conveniently avoided answering my question about the Iraqis using civilians as human shields. You appear to think this tactic is just fine because otherwise the Iraqis would be defeated in short order.

But at the same time you appear to rail at the coalition forces because there are occasional civilian casualties.

That, Comrade Alarmist, is the epitome of hypocrisy. Your hypocritical views are transparent and despicable.

(2 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense