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 - 12:55am Oct 3, 2002 EST (# 4723 of 4733)

lchic 10/2/02 9:03pm

"...Carry on with the realms of spiel Gisterme - pull up a soapbox - hold forth ..... watch out there's a white nuclear elephant parked #!@##%!!! behind you ... too late :)"

Was it a suicide white nuclear elephant, lchic? I didn't notice a thing.

But the first part of your comment I take as high praise coming from a spielmeister like yourself. Thanks!

gisterme - 02:24am Oct 3, 2002 EST (# 4724 of 4733)

almarst2002 10/2/02 9:28pm

"...On the other hand, if you trully believe the US Government is so foolish, why don't you question their statements and assumptions today?.."

Alex, you must realize the the US government is a huge bureaucracy. It is not an all-knowing monolith. It is made up of many departments, each having its own budget and management. Yes, the Congress and executive branches are overseers of all those departments; but, they are only humans too. Remember that there are lobbies that drive the congress...lobbies that mean well and are often genuinely interested in the well being of humanity. However in their zeal to accomplish some good thing, such as the eradication of disease in this case, they exert political pressure on the congress to make things happen. Now I don't have any knowledge of the details of how that ransfer of bio-strains came to pass but I'll bet the decision was not politically driven. I would doubt that at that time the CDC needed to even inform the congress of the transfer of those bio-strains for the purpose of medical research.

That said, I'll also say that was then, this is now. If it's our mess, then why would you complain about us cleaning it up?

I said, in part: " there are plenty of other places that better watch out."

"...Indeed there are. And they know it. If as a realists claim, the Al Capone's world id the only real-politics possible, better watch out even your sweared "friends"..."

What you (very creatively) edited out was the next sentence that didn't serve your purpose. The complete quote should have been:

From: gisterme 10/2/02 7:35pm

"If a declaration of loyalty to the stars-and-stripes is a criteria for not being attacked by the United States, then there are plenty of other places that better watch out. Of course your conclusion is nonsense"

You know, Alex, taking what other people say out of context for the advancement of your own purpose is also deceptive and dishonest. Have you caught something from Robert? Better get to the shrink...quick!

"...Bush nor Blair was able to provide any credible evidence of that. (that Iraq has supported terrorism).

Right. No doubt they are more interested in the continued existance on this earth of their sources than they are in whether or not you know how they know. Believe me, if there is action against Saddam there will be a suberabundance of evidence to support the position that Iraq is actively developing WMD. Unfortunatly, as is happening now, the innocent people of Iraq will probably continue to be the ones who suffer most. Of course, the consequences of doing nothing will likely be far worse.

"...That was never proved more then a speculation, however reasonable it may be..."

Huh? Are you saying that it's just specuation that Iraq hasn't abided by UN resolutions regarding WMD? You must be about the only person on the planet including Saddam Hussein that thinks that. Get real, Alex.

continued...

gisterme - 02:25am Oct 3, 2002 EST (# 4725 of 4733)

gisterme 10/3/02 2:24am (continued)

"...May be he knows how many people are seriously interested in what lies deep in Iraqi's oil? Including our great friend - Turkey. No to mention the Big Boss..."

Now there's a cryptic statement. What do you mean by "lies deep in Iraq's oil"? Who's the "Big Boss"?

"...Can you count just how many countries already have such missiles and nuclear bombs?..."

Sure I can. There are the US, the UK, France, Russia, China and maybe Israel. Fortunately, none of those are ruled by crazy dictators. Do you think we were unfair not to share Manhattan project research with Hitler or Hirohito? Nothing has changed since then. You already know that I wish there were no nuclear bombs in the world. How can we five or six counties that now posess these weapons ever hope to get rid of them if we aloow other folks, especially crazy dictators get their hands on them?

"...If you believe in suicidal nations, then the only way for US to feel safe is to eliminate the rest of the World once and for all..."

I don't believe in suicidal nations. Only suicidal dicatators who really don't care much about what happens to their nations.

"...And, on the same line, how dear you get out on the street with no assurance some suicidal maniac attacks and kills you even before the eyes of a policemen?..."

I can't. That's exacly why something needs to be done. Call us calloused, ignorant, foolish, suckers...whatever you like because we've failed to act for so long. Call us insensitive because we haven't done more to help other contries that are plagued by these suicide bombers. Say we're selfish because we waited until it was done to us. What I say to that is better late than never...and it's way late.

"...Connect the dots if you can. But it does not seems so simple to me..."

What can I say, Alex? So far as I'm concerned the dots are connected. Still, I've known people who can make a complicated puzzle out of soup spoon. Reminds me of one of the other principal posters on this forum. :-)

(8 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense