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 - 08:17am Apr 29, 2002 EST (#1865 of 1892)

lchic 4/29/02 1:01am

"Fear is gaining ground once again in the minds of the human race . . ."

I know fear is a big problem for me - - I don't think the reasons are irrational. Nor are fears irrational for other people.

If people faced their fears, and put them in a reasonable proportion - - and dealt with them in ways that were workable -- we'd all be safer.

To deny fear - - and to take radical, unworkable steps to try to eliminate risk - - doesn't work.

We need to face up to the reasons we have to fear, in the world as it is, with people and circumstances as they are -- and deal with it reasonably. Not with military posturing that isn't workable - or with technical boondoggles, like "missile defense" - that are very expensive, but unworkable.

Fear is a fact - - - good reasons for fear are facts - - among many others.

A key fact is that people, to have any workable security have to protect each other.

That applies to nations, as well. We have to remember that.

I was astonished, on September 11, at how afraid people were. It wasn't that I thought the fear unjustified, exactly. But I was amazed they'd felt so secure all along.

We need realistic reasons to feel safe. The world is showing us reasons why our current "defenses" aren't working now. And with time, or "defenses" are going to weaken -- unless we arrange things for mutual protection - that is workable for almost everybody concerned.

There are times when, for safety to make any sense at all, you have to ask for help . . and have to actually get it.

rshow55 - 08:26am Apr 29, 2002 EST (#1866 of 1892)

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-000030061apr28.story?coll=la%2Dnews%2Dcomment . . . for many, many years, the evidence of anti-semitism in Europe was thin -- the support for it was thin. Now, if it is stronger, there are reasons that ought to be understood. Are they all unjustified?

Calling attention to antisemitism may well be constructive. But when an agressively Jewish state does things that are widely condemned - - is dismissing this "antisemitism" helpful?

Not if that is the only response. It is a way to cut off dialog about other concerns, when communication is just what is needed.

Reading . . . http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-000030061apr28.story?coll=la%2Dnews%2Dcomment . . . it is worth considering carefully the situation the article describes. How expensive and counterproductive US foreign policy has been, with respect to alliances, military, economic and cultural, on which the United States depends. On which we depend in "objective" ways -- and on which we depend for our moral place in the world.

lchic - 09:02am Apr 29, 2002 EST (#1867 of 1892)

The article above shows peoples frustration regarding the unnecessary terrible treatments of people by others. This line 'The Europeans are afraid of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries." would be noticed by Alex.

rshow55 - 09:13am Apr 29, 2002 EST (#1868 of 1892)

Key point is that threats need to be proportionate - - and responses must be, too.

Otherwise, things are impossibly unstable -- and the only kinds of stability (temporarily) available are purchased at the cost of paralysis.

A major fact, that ought to be understood, but is not, is this.

If you threaten people too much, and give them no alternative -- they will often fight to the death -- even when that is quite "irrational."

The US is manufacturing enemies -- and needs to learn how to avoid fights -- not create them.

Of course fights are sometimes necessary. But we shouldn't set up situations where conflict is an endless (and sometimes explosive) regress.

lchic - 09:16am Apr 29, 2002 EST (#1869 of 1892)

Iraq is definately 'in the air' .. an event some of the old warriors (business thread) endorse!

eraserhead2 - 09:49am Apr 29, 2002 EST (#1870 of 1892)
REMEMBER THE 11TH OF SEPTEMBER !

Saddam must be fried. Case closed!

If you try Ariel Sharon you must try Arafat, Vlad Putin and Jiang Zemin.

The Dalai Lama will do the Moonwalk before that ever happens...

Gregory Corso was a basket case. (Although he did write a few okay lines...)

rshow55 - 10:08am Apr 29, 2002 EST (#1871 of 1892)

REMEMBER THE 11TH OF SEPTEMBER !

We need to remember that, and a good deal else.

I remember the 11th of September. On this thread, we were moving toward a useful convergence toward closure - - on a number of things -- and politicians were moving in the direction of finding out sensible answers. Then September 11th, and an an anthrax scare - came along -- and intimidation and instinctive responses became the order of the day.

Although there has been progress since.

People are longing for peace. It has to be achieved in the real world, with real people, dangerous as they are, and real distrust.

If we'd acknowledge some facts, among them the fact that distrust and danger are part of life -- a lot would be safer.

As for Saddam -- if the US invades, even if it wins, and by so doing alienates the world even more -- it will be a victory much more expensive than the alternative. Which is inspections.

Summary of this thread, from a technical perspective, before March 2, 2002: MD14 rshow55 3/1/02 7:07pm

(21 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense