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 - 11:25am Jul 9, 2003 EST (# 12914 of 12917)
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.

On July 4th, President Bush spoke clearly, and issued an important message that had been carefully thought out.

Bush Vows Pre - Emptive Attacks Against Enemies By REUTERS Filed at 5:43 p.m. ET

"We will not permit any terrorist group or outlaw regime to threaten us with weapons of mass murder. We will act, whenever it is necessary, to protect the lives and the liberty of the American people,''"

Seoul Says North Korea Reprocessed Nuclear Rods By REUTERS Filed at 7:52 a.m. ET http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-korea-north-nuclear.html

Earlier, a North Korean cabinet-level delegation which flew into Seoul on Wednesday for economic talks issued a dire warning.

``It is a grim reality that the black clouds of nuclear war are gathering on the Korean Peninsula minute by minute,'' said the arrival statement released by the North Koreans.

The arguments about a nuclear threat from Iraq seem to have been overdone. The danger from North Korea is much clearer.

Since my very first posting on this thread, I've argued that pre-emption might well turn out to be necessary. http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md00100s/md266.htm

"Rogue nuclear forces would be hunted down, with Russia, the US, and other forces acting in coordination to confiscate their nuclear weapons, and with rogues punished in memorable ways.

That was set out as part of an argument - suggestions on what might be done to eliminate all nuclear weapons. http://www.mrshowalter.net/calendar1.htm

With good negotiation - we should be able to avoid pre-emption. But not at the price of assuming any risk.

The Bush administration gets some things wrong, but some things right. It is devoting a lot of attention and care to the Korean situation. Preemption is an option for the United States - and the North Koreans seem, to often, to be acting to make it our only option.

It seems to me that the North Koreans should be clear about that.

Preemption is a real military possibility - and would have the support of the American people under many circumstances - including circumstances that the North Korean government seems to be working towards. Stupidly.

rshow55 - 12:34pm Jul 9, 2003 EST (# 12915 of 12917)
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.

12499-12501 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.ga3YbprNnSu.82221@.f28e622/14153

I promised that I would never, under any circumstances, reveal my relationship with Eisenhower except face to face to a proper authority. The time finally came where it seemed to me that, to keep faith with the things I promised Eisenhower I'd try to do, I had to break that promise. Perhaps I simply ran out of strength.

12378 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.ga3YbprNnSu.82221@.f28e622/14028

12509 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.ga3YbprNnSu.82221@.f28e622/14163

12541 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.ga3YbprNnSu.82221@.f28e622/14196

12608 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.ga3YbprNnSu.82221@.f28e622/14259

We're in a situation where we have to get better, clearer arrangements than we've had.

Bush Defends War, Sidestepping Issue of Faulty Intelligence By DAVID E. SANGER and CARL HULSE Bush Defends War, Sidestepping Issue of Faulty Intelligence By DAVID E. SANGER and CARL HULSE

Sometimes, because judgements and circumstances are fallible and changeable, the end has to justify the means. What else could?

But if Bush is right about that - confident that he got good ends - even with very questionable means - he's responsible for better results than he's getting - and Senator Daschle is right about what he says, too:

" It's a recognition that we were provided faulty information," Tom Daschle, the senate Democratic leader, told reporters on Tuesday. "And I think it's all the more reason why a full investigation of all of the facts surrounding this situation be undertaken, the sooner the better."

I wish more leaders would read Berle. 10068 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.ga3YbprNnSu.82221@.f28e622/11613 includes a very good quote, if a long one.

(2 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense