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.

gisterme - 05:13pm Oct 2, 2002 EST (# 4707 of 4711)

rshow55 10/1/02 6:52pm

"...Groups of people go forward, on the basis of assumptions that are, based on knowledge available, entirely reasonable...."

Not always assumptions, Robert, but okay. In spite of your idealistic world view, more often than not folks do know for sure why they do what they do.

"...But a time comes when the assumptions can be shown, beyond reasonable doubt, to be wrong in some decisive way..."

That may be true when the basis of some particlar action is assumption.

"...If people see no way to stop the work and the patterns they've been engaged in, they ignore the fact that they are no longer acting reasonably, and ignore the problem..."

That statememt pretty well sums up the root causes for the demise of the Soviet government. It also sums up the previous administration's attitude toward the threat of terrorism which was "If we ignore it, it will go away". It also sums up your attitude toward missile defense which seems to be "We don't need it because nobody has launched a nuclear missile at us before...therefore attempts to defend against that threat must be a boondoggle".

"...I believe that, in the history of the nuclear terror, and in history since the Cold War should have ended, misakes such as this, which are only human, have been, nonetheless, very expensive.

That's your conclusion??? Any grammar school english teacher would whack your knuckles for writing a sentence like that. Nevertheless, after several readings, I think I know what you're trying to say.

Firstly, just in case you haven't noticed, the cold war has ended. Having a little trouble changing your paradigm, Robert? Gee...that's excatly what you're complaining about isn't it? Since you're demonstrating your humaity here, and the validity of your statement by your example, are you saying that somehow we should all be transformed to being something besides human?

Human error is always expensive, Robert, whether it's on an individual or a collective scale. Unfortunately, until we humans become infallable, become impervious to poor judgement, become incapable of deception or atrocities toward one another, we'll never be anything but human.

"...The US is making some very bad bets - and some trillion dollar procurement errors..."

That's an easy statement to make when one tries to apply hindsight to the future. Unfortunately, the most current example of a trillion dollar mistake in US policy is it's failure to procure the means to prevent the 911 massacre.

I'm a huge believer in learning from past mistakes. If we don't learn then history will surely continue repeat itself until we do. Applying hindsight to the past, I'd say there's a lot of history I wouldn't want to see repeated.

gisterme - 05:32pm Oct 2, 2002 EST (# 4708 of 4711)

rshow55 10/2/02 4:33pm

I liked your quote from "The National Security Strategy of the United States", Robert.

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

" Today, the international community has the best chance since the rise of the nation-state in the seventeenth century to build a world where great powers compete in peace instead of continually prepare for war. . . . . . The United States will build on these common interests to promote global security. ",

That quote is a perfect example of an application of foresight based on lessons learned from the past. Thanks for the making my point in such a timely manner, Robert!

Still, if the US is the only nation aspiring to achieve such a fundamental sea change in international interaction then it's just another idealistic goal. Even so, why not aim high?

History also shows that lofty ideals must struggle continually to prevent being overcome by those lusting for personal power. When I say that, Hitler, Stalin and Bonaparte are recent-epoch examples of the kind of folks I mean.

mazza9 - 05:38pm Oct 2, 2002 EST (# 4709 of 4711)
"Quae cum ita sunt" Caesar's Gallic Commentaries

Robert:

Have you ever heard of the "If Only" crowd?

1. If only every person would give every other person in the world a back rub then war would become a thing of the past.

2. If only everyone in the world was as good and moral as I am then peace would spring eternal!

3. If only everyone would do what I say then they would be better off!

4. If only everyone was as smart, beautiful, conscientious, (fill in your particular adjective), then the world would be a better place.

How arrogant/ignorant! Does the term "human condition" ring a bell?

Who has been the shining light and hope for the world? the United States. Many ills can be linked to tribalism, colonialism, and communism. The United States has been that shining beacon for the world to emulate. We believe that Liberty and Equality are the means to the ends that you are casting about in blindness. Read alittle history and understand that one person cannot change the world but a caring loving society can if it is based on the above mentioned beliefs.

Quick, someone give lchic CPR!

(2 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense