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 - 12:00pm May 3, 2002 EST (#1973 of 1988)

Showalter asks above why do the players resort to WAR rather than sort out problems via negotiations?

It's a good question.

Why are negotiations not seen as the best solution.

How is it that ME discussions are now occuring - why not a year ago?

Clinton had concerns regarding the Middle East - what were his major current concerns?

In the ME situtation the Palestinians were seen as OTHERs from ELSEWHERE who (in the USA MEDIA) have not been afforded the status of the Jews/Israel. Why hasn't that status been equivalent?

If the goal for Europe is a trading block - can the ME be also accommodated to build into a modern economy, trader, society that can interact with the EU ... building to equal terms?

---

The 'need' for a country that has a huge defense budget seems to be wars - many conjured. If the USA reduced this budget and looked to upgrading either it's own (and/or world citizens) wouldn't this be a more effective use of money?

That there has been NO SENSE OF THE VALUE OF MONEY has been seen recently eg as TANKS have TRASHED medical transporters. Countries hungry for wars rather than settlement via negotiation seem to have the old-war-horse head held low patternings ... along with armies and armaments they are too readily prepared to use.

If the UN were a proper world body it would look to outlaw the concept of war - rather assisting weak economies to grow.

If zones damaged by an intruding army could make legal swift claims for damages to : people, infrastructure, properties that were binding - then warmongers would have to think of debt repayments crippling them for years into the future - and have more regard for life&limb - and an improved sense of the value of things.

Just looking at road alterations and reconstruction, thinking about the people and materials involved .... it takes a LOT of EFFORT to develop towns and cities ... and this should be better appreciated.

lchic - 12:03pm May 3, 2002 EST (#1974 of 1988)

|> C U L T U R E
^{http://dmoz.org/Arts/Music/Styles/World/Middle_Eastern/}

rshow55 - 02:30pm May 3, 2002 EST (#1975 of 1988)

lchic 5/3/02 12:00pm ... "Showalter asks above why do the players resort to WAR rather than sort out problems via negotiations? . . . Why are negotiations not seen as the best solution?"

Partly, because the technique of negotiation has been limited. We can do better now, and to successfully face up to challenges ahead, we have to. From where we now stand, great improvements would be easy and inexpensive. What a difference it would make if complexities were competently handled in the undertaking the US, Russia, and the EU have just announced!

U.S., in Surprise, Announces Global Talks for Mideast By TODD S. PURDUM and DAVID E. SANGER http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/03/international/middleeast/03CAPI.html shows a situation where, if complications can be faced - - and resolved, enormous good could come. MD1972 lchic 5/3/02 11:45am includes key questions:

In one years time - where do we ALL want to be?"
"In five years time - where do we ALL want to be?"
"In ten years time - where do we ALL want to be?"
"In twenty years time - where do we ALL want to be?"

"Planning should match the aspirations of those publics with a visionary future." For that matching to be possible, there have to be mechanics in place that make it possible , for the real people involved.

If responsible people actually read and thought about the things I said yesterday -- which were simple things, practical things -- mechanically easy things -- then I believe that the chances for real success in the middle east would be significantly improved. We need to do better getting to closure than we have done. We can.

MD1956 rshow55 5/2/02 11:24am ... MD1959 rshow55 5/2/02 1:34pm
MD1961 rshow55 5/2/02 2:20pm ... MD1962 rshow55 5/2/02 2:54pm

rshow55 - 02:32pm May 3, 2002 EST (#1976 of 1988)

Opportunities for a safer, more prosperous world are very great -- but they depend on openness, and correct decisions. I believe some of the most essential opportunities were set out eloquently and well in Organizing the World to Fight Terror by IGOR S. IVANOV , Russian Foreign Minister http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/27/opinion/27IVAN.html . The reasons that the hopes expressed there have been largely dashed (or at least postponed) bear looking at. I think that important hopes Ivanov expresses, and patterns or human cooperation he expresses, could be revived if the mechanics of complex negotiation were improved, as it now can be.

lchic - 03:24pm May 3, 2002 EST (#1977 of 1988)

"" ... Russia is prepared to work out far-reaching understandings on disarmament with the United States, based on principles of mutual trust, predictability and transparency. This could become a most important positive signal for the entire world community ........Russia and the United States will serve their own interests and will strengthen international security as a whole. / Igor S. Ivanov (Russian foreign minister). ""

^{http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/27/opinion/27IVAN.html}

An important signal indeed when Russia has other important nations as 'friends'. It seems a pity that America has not started to even work towards Nuclear disarmament by actually taking down Nukes!

(11 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense