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 - 06:51pm Oct 1, 2002 EST (# 4701 of 4702)
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.

I think this is real progress:

Iraq and U.N. Agree on Access for Weapons Inspectors By MARK LANDLER http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/01/international/01CND-INSP.html

and some other people do, too:

Dow Gains 4.6% as Stocks Start New Quarter With a Comeback By REUTERS http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/business/business-markets-stocks.html

Stocks rallied today as a deal between Iraq and the U.N. took the edge off war fears and helped lure investors back into the ravaged market.

. . . . . . .

From right now - looking at the future - one can imagine some very happy endings ( how a story is shaped, here ) - - - where people can live more happily, and more safely - - ever after. But in the real world, better endings will require some changes.

Getting clear on missile defense is part of what needs to be done - but only a part. I wonder (though he wouldn't talk to me) what Annan might want done?

What would Putin want done? What would the leaders of the nations in NATO, and the other nations in the Security Council want done? What would ex-presidents of the United States, living and dead, want done, if they could think about the issues involved? What would the pre-injury Nash want done? What would "the average reader of the New York Times" want done?

What would Casey want done (or forgive me for) ?

I've been working full time on this thread since Sept. 25, 2000, and on March 4, 2001, the Science/Health Forums Host said this:

rshowalter, I admire your prolific posts, but you might want to take a breather until we get some fresh blood in here...

I responded Yes sir ! and then almarst appeared, with this very important post:

almarstel2001 - 12:17am Mar 5, 2001 EST (#829

" As I see it, the US military wants the NMD out of frustration and fear to face the situation, when its tremendous adwantage in power will be useless against anyone who posesses even a single nuclear missle capable to reach the US and who may be ready to commit suiside in case of aggression. Practically that would mean the end of American's ability to dictate and rule by force. Imagine - no more bombings of Iraq, libia, Serbia! For the country which spends about 300 bi/year - 30% of its budget on military, more then 10 next military spenders combined, this is a real nightmere.

" "Unfortunatly", that is going to be a reality, sooner or later. The more US will push for world's domination - the sooner. And no NMD will save it for at least the following two reasons:

" 1 - No NMD will ever quarantee 100% success, which will the "domination" wars too risky for US.

" 2 - The offensive means, capable to overcome the defence, are usually much less expensive and simpler to produce.

" However, the current state of affairs already caused tremendous damage to US bu showing its willingness to ignore its pledges and signed laws.

" Who would trust the dishonest arrogant and brutal superpower bully run amok?

- - - - -

At that time, I was afraid that there was no contact at all, at the level of sympathy, between the US and Russia.

I think there's been a great deal of progress since then MD1999 rshow55 5/4/02 10:39am - - but we've fallen short of hopes for real peace - after a lot of work from lchic , almarst and gisterme as well.

(1 following message)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense