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.

lchic - 08:14am Apr 12, 2002 EST (#1289 of 1317)

US revives cold war nuclear strategy

Julian Borger in Washington / Friday April 12, 2002 / The Guardian

rshow55 - 09:45am Apr 12, 2002 EST (#1290 of 1317)

Gisterme's MD1281-1282 gisterme 4/12/02 3:00am posting is interesting, and I'll respond to it, though I've got some other committments today that will keep me from doing so for a while.

I welcome the end of MD1282 gisterme 4/12/02 3:15am

"These "questions" that you've pronounced to be so important seem to have little substance when exposed to the harsh glare of reality."

Well then, why not subject them to a "harsh glare of reality" sufficient to actually establish the key facts and relations? Gisterme knows very well what I have in mind, from past discussions.

Enron looked good, and was a pillar of support for George Bush, for a long time. Then people actually looked deeper, and a great deal changed. And some things that should have changed have not.

I hope anyone interested in why "technical questions" about this adminstration matters will read Krugman's piece today:

The White Stuff by PAUL KRUGMAN http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/12/opinion/12KRUG.html

"The Bush administration has appointed a record number of corporate executives to high-level positions, often regulating or doing business with their former employers."

Another Krugman piece, well titled, and relevant here - and states a concern that has been reinforced since it was written. The Bush administration is degrading the United States in many many ways -- some as essential as they can possibly be to our Constitution, and the most fundamental notions of national honor. . . The Big Lie by PAUL KRUGMAN http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/27/opinion/27KRUG.html

Here are some other pieces that matter in context.

Nuclear Testing and National Honor by RICHARD BUTLER http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/13/opinion/13BUTL.html

Elder Bush in Big GOP Cast Toiling for Top Equity Firm by LESLIE WAYNE http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/05/politics/05CARL.html

Much that we ought to be concerned of is being done on an institutional basis - using patterns well worked out by the Nazis -- and perhaps by no accident at all. C.I.A. Opens Files on Hitler by DAVID JOHNSTON http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/27/world/27CND-INTEL.html

In Virginia, Young Conservatives Learn How to Develop and Use Their Political Voices by Blaine Harden http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/11/politics/11CONS.html

I may not be able to get back to the board today -- but I feel progress is being made.

mazza9 - 10:53am Apr 12, 2002 EST (#1291 of 1317)
Louis Mazza

lchic

For someone who posts the Palestinian drivel about the history of that region you certainly are ignorant if you don't know what C-4 is. C-4 aka plastique is the weapon of choice for the killing spree which the Palestinians are engaged in.

"Do what I say or DIE!" is the bargaining mantra of Arafat and his murderous minions. Haven't you ever watched Chuck Heston lead the Israelites out of Egypt, {sarcasm}! The Zionist movement predates the fall of the Ottoman empire by 30-50 years, (late 1870s approx.) and the Actions at the end of WWI were only temporary vis a vis the League of Nations which failed in the early 1930s. If you look up the history you'll find the Japanese anger to the "poker rules" that were changed after the Japanese sat down at the table to play. Interesting metaphor.

Before you begin spewing the Palestinian line about recent UN Resolutions answer me this, "Why haven't the Arab countries accepted the original UN Mandates of 1948 but rather have launched wars of agression against the state of Israel?

LouMazza

almarst-2001 - 12:44pm Apr 12, 2002 EST (#1292 of 1317)

mazza - "Why haven't the Arab countries accepted the original UN Mandates of 1948 but rather have launched wars of agression against the state of Israel?"

I, for one, spent a lot of time thinking about the origin, the direction and possible end-point of this conflict. Being a Jewish and an Israeli Citizen living there for 14 years just forced me to do so.

Here what i believe.

The state of Israel was established by the European Powers (who the UN was in 1948?) as a gesture and an attempt to errase the terrible disaster those powers - ALL OF THEM, contributed to the Holocoust. No Arab countries had a say in this process. The British just agreed to curve out a piece of Palestine under their mandate. And did so only after tremendous pressure from Jewish resistance fighters. They just could not afford politically to crush this resistance just after the WWII. However, they clearly understood the danger of Jewish Socialist State in the mids of the oil-rich most importand part of their Empire. The British solution was as follows:

1. Create an indefencible borders running accross most populated areas. While breaking the Arabic part into two - the Gasa and the West Bank to future increase the tensions.

2. Place the loyal ruler from the ethnic minority in Jordan, totally dependent on a British support.

3. Organise and arm the Arabic rulers against Socialist Infidels.

Thats how it all started.

As usuall, the people who pay a price are again not those who created the problem.

almarst-2001 - 01:10pm Apr 12, 2002 EST (#1293 of 1317)

Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.) is calling for an investigation into whether President Bush and other government officials had advance notice of terrorist attacks on Sept. 11 but did nothing to prevent them. She added that "persons close to this administration are poised to make huge profits off America's new war." - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34565-2002Apr11.html

(24 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense