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 - 08:05pm Sep 12, 2002 EST (# 4279 of 4280)
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.

G.O.P. Presses Democrats to Act Quickly on an Iraq Vote By DAVID STOUT http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/12/politics/12CND-CONG.html

The most responsible, patriotic thing that the Democrats can do is to ask careful and penetrating questions.

After enron - - and many other deceptions - the patriotic thing is to ask the administration to tell the truth .

MD4218 rshow55 9/7/02 8:48am

The Bully's Pulpit By PAUL KRUGMAN http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/06/opinion/06KRUG.htm sets out points that are vital - that should be checked - and that, if checked sensibly, would stop the Bush presidency for all practical purposes.

The Bush team's pronouncements rely on doublethink, the ability to believe two contradictory things at the same time.

We are in a dangerous time in our history, when Krugman's words are speakable, and ignored. The whole world should notice.

Other Krugman pieces - and related points, are set out in Pschwar, Casablanca - - - and terror http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/296

The question of a "vast right-wing conspiracy" is raised, and given focus, in . The Smoke Machine http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/29/opinion/29KRUG.html

and

Connect the Dots by PAUL KRUGMAN http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/02/opinion/02KRUG.html

I believe that the "American Empire" is as large as it is, and has some of the characteristics that it does, because the interest of the United States, as a nation, has diverged from the interests of a "military-industrial-political complex" constructed to fight the Cold War, that has taken a dangerous degree of control over US government affairs since that time. The American "missile defense" program is interesting for some of the same reasons that the Enron affair http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/1/Transcripts/721/4/business/_ENRON-PRIMER.html . . . is interesting.

On the subject of this thread, the "missile defense" programs are nonsensical and corrupt, in the senses that ought to matter both technically or militarily, and illustrates broader corruptions that concern the whole world, because American power is as great as it now is, and is used as it now is.

Checking on these issues - and issues implicit and explicit in President Bush's speech -- is important - but for it to happen, some leaders of nation states are going to have to be interested - as I believe they should be, because it is risky to be led, and to defer, to an administration that is taking positions that go wrong, and produce unnecessary risks, costs, and fighting, again and again.

Here are some other OpEd pieces by Paul Krugman quoted on the NYT Missile Defense thread:

The Big Lie http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/27/opinion/27KRUG.html

Bad Heir Day http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/30/opinion/30KRUG.html

The Great Divide http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/29/opinion/29KRUG.html

At Long Last? http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/05/opinion/05KRUG.html

The White Stuff http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/12/opinion/12KRUG.html

Losing Latin America http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/16/opinion/16KRUG.html

The Angry People http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/23/opinion/23KRUG.html

A number of links discussing Krugman's pieces are set out in MD1741 rshow55 4/24/02 10:37am

rshow55 - 08:08pm Sep 12, 2002 EST (# 4280 of 4280)
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.

President Bush gave a good speech today. Only a speech. Not a statement by a God - or even by a public figure very widely trusted in the world.

It is a good speech if it is checked .

The administration will have an opportunity to show good faith only if key issues in that speech are discussed.

The best thing that leaders of other nation states can do, and the best things that political leaders in the United States can do, is not to defer to what's said in that speech - but to check it, in detail and in context.

The very last thing that the world needs -- the last thing the nation needs - - is quick and mindless deference to George W. Bush.

Bush spent far too much time on the Enron plane for us to do that.

President Bush has presented his argument. That argument is just that -- an argument.

Everything in the speech should be questioned - carefully, forcefully, and in detail.

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense