New York Times Readers Opinions
The New York Times
Home
Job Market
Real Estate
Automobiles
News
International
National
Washington
Campaigns
Business
Technology
Science
Health
Sports
New York Region
Education
Weather
Obituaries
NYT Front Page
Corrections
Opinion
Editorials/Op-Ed
Readers' Opinions


Features
Arts
Books
Movies
Travel
Dining & Wine
Home & Garden
Fashion & Style
New York Today
Crossword/Games
Cartoons
Magazine
Week in Review
Multimedia
College
Learning Network
Services
Archive
Classifieds
Book a Trip
Personals
Theater Tickets
Premium Products
NYT Store
NYT Mobile
E-Cards & More
About NYTDigital
Jobs at NYTDigital
Online Media Kit
Our Advertisers
Member_Center
Your Profile
E-Mail Preferences
News Tracker
Premium Account
Site Help
Privacy Policy
Newspaper
Home Delivery
Customer Service
Electronic Edition
Media Kit
Community Affairs
Text Version
TipsGo to Advanced Search
Search Options divide
go to Member Center Log Out
  

 [F] 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.


Earliest Messages Previous Messages Recent Messages Outline (5612 previous messages)

almarst2002 - 08:24pm Nov 11, 2002 EST (# 5613 of 5651)

The politics of biological weapons - http://english.pravda.ru/main/2002/11/11/39350.html

The American military is developing new-generation bacteriological weapons, which is a serious violation of international agreements on the prohibition of these kind of weapons. The Guardian informs that the statement was made by respected experts on both sides of the Atlantic. Professor Malcolm Dando, from the University of Bradford, and microbiologist Mark Wheelis, from the University of California, are sure that the USA is continuing to develop cluster bombs with biological components, with anthrax cultures for instance. The Guardian reports that the scientists point out the obvious contradictions in the domestic and foreign policies of the USA, which is ready to wage a war with Iraq with the supposed goal of stopping the production of the very same kinds of weapons that it is developing itself. Professor Dando says that secret military laboratories are working on the following.

1. Attempts are being made to develop a bacteriological weapon using bacteriological materials open to all; this is being done to prove that terrorists might also do this as well.

2. Research projects are be conducted with the goal of genetically engineering dangerous cultures, including an anthrax resistant to modern antibiotics.

3. These laboratories are also working on the production of dry anthrax spores. However, the scale of these research projects disagrees with the declared goals; it is impossible to find out how the spore surplus is being used.

Specialists in biological and chemical weapons also say that the USA is developing so-called ďnon-deadlyĒ kinds of weapons, similar to the narcotic gas used during the storm of the theater in Moscow occupied by Chechen terrorists. The American military is also developing new generation biological weapons, which is a serious violation of international agreements prohibiting the production of these kind of weapons.

The USís double-dealing in the production and usage of biological weapons brings to nothing to all the efforts of the world community to gain control over the usage of such deadly weapons. Moreover, currently, members of the 1972 convention donít speak in support of international inspections. They just hope that countries that had signed the document 30 years ago will agree to hold annual, non-committal discussions. The main objective they pursue is to constantly remind the world about the necessity to be on the look-out. Isnít this funny? Itís obvious that the USA is laughing at the whole of the world: Washington wants to postpone the talks on the 1972 convention until 2006. Observers say that new suggestions are ineffective and are unlikely to be approved of by the White House. The principle often used by the USA, ď Quod liced Jovi non liced bovi,Ē is still in force.

It is an age old trick for the thief to run before the crowd crying "Thief! Catch the thief!"

almarst2002 - 08:34pm Nov 11, 2002 EST (# 5614 of 5651)

Baghdad signs $882m worth of contracts - http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/world/story/0,4386,154324,00.html?

lunarchick - 08:38pm Nov 11, 2002 EST (# 5615 of 5651)

There are people
'on their knees -
even within the USA 'democracy'
who actully believe they are standing' ...

Politicians 'can fool most of the people, most of the time ....
(but not all of the people all of the time')

http://www.quoteland.com/author.asp?AUTHOR_ID=1042 see Lincoln

lunarchick - 08:41pm Nov 11, 2002 EST (# 5616 of 5651)

Signing contracts to buy 'finished goods' isn't helping the people of Iraq to GET INTO JOBS ... it's providing 'elsewhere' jobs

Iraq should be looking to alliances whereby 'others' - especially say the USA - bring industry into Iraq that makes the goods people need .. that trains people ... that uses people ... that gives jobs ... gives training ... starts to move Iraq from Agrarian Peasantry towards a modern socio-technical nation

lunarchick - 08:46pm Nov 11, 2002 EST (# 5617 of 5651)

Iraq Parliament ... isn't this made up of folks who - like Elvis followers - look to the master to provide them with the new cadillac ?

When Iraq Parliament says "NO" to the UN demands on weapons inspection - isn't this the voice of 'followers' trying to please the master ... rather than the voices of farsighted visionaries who can see a different, advanced, inclusive, wonderful future for Iraq.

The weapons inspection question is a 'now' question

The weapons inspection answer can only be 'yes'

Were Saddam really smart - then he'd disagree with Parliament - send them back to talk it over again - with a VISION for Iraq through C21

More Messages Recent Messages (34 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Your Preferences

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  / Missile Defense





Home | Back to Readers' Opinions Back to Top


Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company | Privacy Policy | Contact Us