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 - 08:17pm Apr 22, 2002 EST (#1680 of 1703)

almarst-2001 4/22/02 7:58pm

"Deep down I still believe its not just am attempt to suck the tax$ into the big black hall.

For many involved, I'm sure that's true. Take away the laser weapons, and the other offensive ideas for space weapons don't amount to much - but the culture that's described in The Next Battlefield May Be in Outer Space by JACK HITT http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/05/magazine/05SPACEWARS.html is as agressive as it can possibly be.

As I mentioned before, I can imagine the Pentagon's frustration with the idea that 400bn military force may not be usable against a country 10 times weaker militarely. They surely hope to establish an unconditional dictatorial power over the World.

. Almarst , I don't think they are as coherent as that. They want to be able to defeat anybody, with a huge margin of error, under any circumstance, with no casualties. . . . Militarily, they are set up to spend money - to fantasize threats -- and to set up circumstances where fighting is well-nigh inevitable. But "dictatorial power over the world" -- when you get down to cases, is a lot of work. Too much for them. But there is a gross disproportion between means and ends.

Two long sentences:

. If the United States could, and would, explain its national interest -- distinct from the interests of its military-industrial complex, and explain how its interests fit in the interconnected world we live in -- and do it honestly, and in ways that other nations could check, it could satisfy every reasonable security need it has, without unreasonable or unacceptably unpopular uses of force.

. The rest of the world, collectively, and in detail, would try hard to accomodate US needs, if it understood them, and could reasonably believe and respect them.

For the separate, and distinctly different cases of Iran, Iraq, and North Korea, there would be different sentences - - but the two long sentences above seem to me to be most important.

Of course, other nations could and should be clearer, too. But Americans, with military expenditures now larger than those of the next largest 12 militaries combined , has a special responsibility.

Almarst , I appreciate the chance to interact with you. Especially right now.

MD24 rshow55 3/1/02 8:05pm

almarst-2001 - 08:25pm Apr 22, 2002 EST (#1681 of 1703)

Meanwhile...

For over a decade, the Empire and its vassals have gradually imposed themselves into the lives and lands of people in the Balkans, almost always to those peoples' detriment. In the process, they have torn down many pillars of civilization, law and common decency, all in the name of help, human rights and humanitarianism. Whether they did so as actual masters of malice, or mere fools who thought they could use the power of Tolkien's metaphorical Ring for good, now hardly seems to matter. For all power exacts a price, and absolute power most of all. - http://www.antiwar.com/malic/m-col.html

rshow55 - 08:25pm Apr 22, 2002 EST (#1682 of 1703)

Got a call. Out.

almarst-2001 - 08:31pm Apr 22, 2002 EST (#1683 of 1703)

Meanwhile...

For over a decade, the Empire and its vassals have gradually imposed themselves into the lives and lands of people in the Balkans, almost always to those peoples' detriment. In the process, they have torn down many pillars of civilization, law and common decency, all in the name of help, human rights and humanitarianism. Whether they did so as actual masters of malice, or mere fools who thought they could use the power of Tolkien's metaphorical Ring for good, now hardly seems to matter. For all power exacts a price, and absolute power most of all. - http://www.antiwar.com/malic/m-col.html

manjumicha2001 - 08:33pm Apr 22, 2002 EST (#1684 of 1703)

Thank you, Rshow, for those straight-forward and crisp answers !!

almarst-2001 - 08:39pm Apr 22, 2002 EST (#1685 of 1703)

Sorry, Robert, but I did not write this article:

Thomas Friedman, columnist for the New York Times, is my favorite phony American liberal. Why phony? Over the years Mr. Friedman has written a number of remarkably parochial, jingoistic columns. Topics have included his protectionist views on competition with Japan, his militant views on Cuba, and his rambling, imperialist-stained notion of globalization. - http://yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=205&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

almarst-2001 - 08:45pm Apr 22, 2002 EST (#1686 of 1703)

''Oil in the Ice Age'' - http://yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=214&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

almarst-2001 - 08:51pm Apr 22, 2002 EST (#1687 of 1703)

The corporations which are America require huge amounts of public money – taxpayers' money in the form of subsidies, tax breaks and purchase orders – simply in order to survive. Defense budgets, typically, provide massive amountes of such "free" money for corporations, expending trillions of public dollars on research and development to the ultimate benefit of private corporations. But a military funded in this way is hard to sustain in the face of the inevitable resistance to the constant drain on taxpayers’ resources in the absence of a clear and present danger. Therefore an enemy is always required. - http://yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=222&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

(16 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense