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 - 11:52pm Nov 10, 2002 EST (# 5577 of 5581)

Robert,

I am not fan of Saddam. I even won't go to the discussion on how much of his acts where inspired and approved by those who are after his head today.

My question is this - What is a criteria for disarming a nation from WMD?

The only two official arguments I hear are that HE used it against its own people (Kurds) and in a war against his neighbors (Iran).

Both of those acts are deplorable. However, he was not the first one to use Gas in a war. Britain, France and Germany used it in a WWI. US is the only one who used N-Bombs during WWII. And US armed forces widely used and still uses toxins in form of Agent Orange and DU munittion. And I hear no voices demanding the disarmament of British, France or US.

Nor was he the first head of state to kill his own Citizens. Germany and Russia did it in a much larger scale. Turkey, the member of NATO and Western ally, armed to the teeth by US, exterminated several millions of its Armenian citizens. How many American died in US civil war? In Europe durin the revolution and civil wars? Without the use of gases. Does it make any difference HOW the people got killed. With bombs, gas or knifes?

So, why Iraq?

lunarchick - 12:03am Nov 11, 2002 EST (# 5578 of 5581)

GU Talk Rice http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?50@@.3ba7771d/0

rshow55 - 05:56am Nov 11, 2002 EST (# 5579 of 5581)
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.

almarst2002 11/10/02 11:52pm sets out profound questions - and it is getting to be time to ask them. There are times when ideas and arguments are ready to propagate - - Chain Breakers http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee79f4e/618 - - - and I think the time for almarst's questions is approaching.

If Iraq is disarmed gracefully and peacefully, the whole world will have a right to see that these questions are clearly discussed - with enough of the facts and context set out so that we can come to much better answers than we have and accept today.

Almarst's question about sane standards of what matters about killing is essential:

Does it make any difference HOW the people got killed? With bombs, gas or knifes?

In some ways, one can say yes - but considering everything - how important are these ways? People ought to think about that much more clearly than they do.

Weapons of mass destruction are ugly. In any hands. Either used, or used as threats. They are also very unstable and obsolete menaces, in any sane military terms -given the situation now - and in the future. We should work to get rid of them.

Step by step.

Safely.

Stably.

Iraq should be a start. It can be a good start - if people act reasonably in that situation - and insist on dealing with almarst's questions.

5146 rshow55 10/23/02 8:26am ... 5147 rshow55 10/23/02 11:18am

(2 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense