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 - 05:44pm Sep 20, 2002 EST (# 4454 of 4456)

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/20/politics/20STEXT_FULL.html

(Page 2 of 13)

"The U.S. national security strategy will be based on a distinctly American internationalism that reflects the union of our values and our national interests." LIE.

"work to prevent attacks against us and our friends;" Feel free to attack our enemies

"prevent our enemies from threatening us, our allies, and our friends, with weapons of mass destruction;" Why would someone take a stand against a colossal superpower and become its enemy? In truth, the WMD is the only deterrance against such superpower as US.

"ignite a new era of global economic growth through free markets and free trade;" Just a couple of month ago he ordered the steel tarifs of 30%... Short memory... or...

"expand the circle of development by opening societies and building the infrastructure of democracy;" Humanitarian bombing? Shouldn't first to fix the Florida's voting boots?

"transform America's national security institutions to meet the challenges and opportunities of the twenty-first century." On a way... And seems coming even faster then most realise.

"and see elected leaders replace generals in Latin America and Africa, we see examples of how authoritarian systems can evolve, marrying local history and traditions with the principles we all cherish." generals in Latin America and Africa... and Asia ... and Oil Kings? Those same ones the US installed and supported?

(Page 3 of 13)

"use our foreign aid to promote freedom and support those who struggle non-violently for it" non-violently... Just like the US?

"The enemy is terrorism -- premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against innocents." And the political motivations are?

"Afghanistan has been liberated; coalition forces continue to hunt down the Taliban and al-Qaida. But it is not only this battlefield on which we will engage terrorists. Thousands of trained terrorists remain at large with cells in North America, South America, Europe, Africa, the Middle East, and across Asia." Looks like battle plan for a couple of generations.

(Page 4 of 13)

"The United States should be realistic about its ability to help those who are unwilling or unready to help themselves. Where and when people are ready to do their part, we will be willing to move decisively." Feel free to draw your own conclusion...

(Page 5 of 13)

"But deterrence based only upon the threat of retaliation is far less likely to work against leaders of rogue states more willing to take risks, gambling with the lives of their people, and the wealth of their nations." As for example?

"Such states also see these weapons as their best means of overcoming the conventional superiority of the United States." A WORD OF TRUTH, FINALY.

"The targets of these attacks are our military forces and our civilian population, in direct violation of one of the principal norms of the law of warfare. As was demonstrated by the losses on September 11, 2001, mass civilian casualties is the specific objective of terrorists and these losses would be exponentially more severe if terrorists acquired and used weapons of mass destruction." Just a lesson learned from the "civilized" West. Unless I misunderstand of the meaning of Dresden Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia ...

In short, a poor piece of second class demagogy.

(2 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense