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.

almarst2003 - 05:39pm Nov 9, 2003 EST (# 17025 of 17083)

WASHINGTON - The Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted Friday to repeal a 10-year-old ban on researching low-power nuclear warheads.

The Bush administration pushed for the legislation, arguing that the United States must maintain the technology and skills needed to develop new weapons to counter threats of chemical, biological and nuclear attacks. Critics say it will undermine efforts to curb nuclear proliferation.

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/7210241.htm

bluestar23 - 06:37pm Nov 9, 2003 EST (# 17026 of 17083)

lchic:

"In 1942 Churchill said

" This is not the end.

It is not even the beginning of the end.

But it is perhaps the end of the beginning "

after routing the Nazi at El Alamein WWII"

Lchic and rshow55 as Churchill, embattled but defiant....a very rational analogy....but imperfect....in the end Churchill lost the War-time election...to the Labour Party of Bevan...

wrcooper - 06:40pm Nov 9, 2003 EST (# 17027 of 17083)

The Bush NMD program is wrong-headed and technologically flawed.

Defeat Bush in 2004.

This guy needs to go.

cantabb - 06:48pm Nov 9, 2003 EST (# 17028 of 17083)

Bluestar:

" ....we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender" -- like Winston.

More like martyrs, missionaries, freedom/peace/-fighters, and the conscience of the world -- all rolled into one !

Here, the usual run-of-the-mill Messiah complex....

cantabb - 06:55pm Nov 9, 2003 EST (# 17029 of 17083)

Bluestar: I thought Churchill lost to Clement Attlee, Labor (Bevan, a laborite too).

bluestar23 - 07:08pm Nov 9, 2003 EST (# 17030 of 17083)

Cantabb:

I read some of the Science....Forum you linked to..quite interesting...but it's sure a lot more "normal" compared to this Forum...I didn't know you folks knew each other from another Forum.....lchic's over there too, so she'll keep posting there, maybe bringing the World up to date on latest Showalter news after this ends....

bluestar23 - 07:10pm Nov 9, 2003 EST (# 17031 of 17083)

I'm sure you are right, but Bevan then must have been a Minister in said Government, as the Labour (with "u") Party won the election by promising "Cradle to Grave" economic security...based on the well-known "Bevan Report"...

bluestar23 - 07:14pm Nov 9, 2003 EST (# 17032 of 17083)

Bluestar:

"to the Labour Party of Bevan..."

Strictly speaking, this sentence construction does not necessarily mean I meant Bevan to be Prime Minister, does it....?

cantabb - 07:24pm Nov 9, 2003 EST (# 17033 of 17083)

Strictly speaking, this sentence construction does not necessarily mean I meant Bevan to be Prime Minister, does it....?

I don't think so. But leaving Attlee {LaboUr) out might be confusing.

Recall Winston's cruel barb (I paraphrase): Mr Attlee is a modest man, has much to be modest about.

But he did defeat Winston after WWII.

(50 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense