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.

almarst2002 - 11:06am Aug 29, 2003 EST (# 13456 of 13465)

DON'T WORRY... BE HAPPY:

Iraq & the Media http://www.fair.org/international/iraq.html

COULD IT BE THE US PUBLIC SCHOOLS ARE AS THEY ARE ... BY DESIGN?

speedbird77 - 09:10am Aug 30, 2003 EST (# 13457 of 13465)
† DEATH to Terror †

EIJING, Aug. 30 - North Korea declared today that it sees no need to continue nuclear talks with the six nations it met in Beijing last week and has no choice but to strengthen its nuclear deterrent, sharply contradicting an agreement announced by China and potentially escalating the nuclear crisis.

A North Korean foreign ministry spokesman quoted by the official KCNA news agency in Pyongyang dismissed the just-concluded six-party negotiations in Beijing as a trick designed to disarm the North. The spokesman said such negotiations were of no use to the Communist state. ______________________________________________________________________

Of course they want no further negotiations. NOT ONE Asian nation supported the North Korean position of nuclear blackmail.

Japan has the right idea.

Get moving on the missile defense shield and stop hoping Kim Jong Il will see reason.

Let them have their nukes.

What good will having weapons do for the NK's?

They cant feed them to their people, they cannot threaten anyone without knowing certain retaliation would be swift and without mercy and while their economy further flattens out, the winter is coming.

We should ignore the NK's and let them develop whatever they wish.

However, a word of warning to them.

Should an attack from terrorists or anyone come as a result of NK sharing nuclear technology, the response will be one the NK's could not even imagine.

rshow55 - 12:16pm Aug 30, 2003 EST (# 13458 of 13465)
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.

North Korea Says It Is Against More Talks By JOSEPH KAHN http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/30/international/asia/30KORE.html

BEIJING, Aug. 30 - North Korea declared today that it sees no need to continue nuclear talks with the six nations it met in Beijing last week and has no choice but to strengthen its nuclear deterrent, sharply contradicting an agreement announced by China and potentially escalating the nuclear crisis.

. . . .

At the conclusion of negotiations Friday, North Korea joined the United States, China, South Korea, Japan and Russia in pledging to hold another round of six-party negotiations within two months and to refrain from taking any provocative steps to escalate the situation in the meantime.

China announced the agreement amid some fanfare, and Beijing's state-controlled newspapers trumpeted the arrangement for new talks as a sign that China's efforts to bring about a diplomatic solution had borne fruit.

North Korea's quick disavowal "is a major slap in the face to China," said a leading political analyst here, who noted that Beijing would have been certain to make sure North Korea supported the text of Friday's announcement before issuing it.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

The North Korean leadership is doing just the opposite of what they reasonably ought to do - in its own terms - and from many, many other perspectives.

They should be moving slowly, guardedly, carefully toward a settlement - rather than moving recklessly, and in disarray, away from any possibility of a livable arrangement for themselves and their neighbors. Whatever they do - it is in their interest to take small, careful steps - that might permit a stable solution - not steps that make the odds of their losing greater in every way.

They must be stumped.

They need to think harder about what their alternatives really are. What consequences really are. Only a few things would have to change - given negotiations as of yesterday - for their situation to be much better. Rather than walking away, they should work for those changes.

They can do much better than this.

jorian319 - 03:10pm Aug 30, 2003 EST (# 13459 of 13465)

One of the lessons of Iraq is that it does not pay to get anthopomorphic about the motives of despotic 'leaders'. Their motives do not follow the patterns that we assume are universal among humans. We shake our heads in wonder that they would do things that are patently BAD for their countries. In fact, they don't even consider what's good or bad for their countries. Their heiriarchy of priorities generally begins and ends with what they think is good for themselves. Period.

mazza9 - 10:29pm Aug 31, 2003 EST (# 13460 of 13465)
"Quae cum ita sunt" Caesar's Gallic Commentaries

Jorian: Excellent observation. To bad Robert is unable to connect the dots and draw such succint truths!

(5 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense