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 (5635 previous messages)

rshow55 - 09:23pm Nov 11, 2002 EST (# 5636 of 5651) Delete Message
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 11/11/02 9:15pm - - - I think that the odds of impartiality are quite good - and if Russia, at its own expense, wanted "kibbitzers" close at hand - to help assure impartiality - they'd probably be welcomed - - and it would cost little.

Much of the Bush administration does want regime change -- but they negotiated that away at the UN and the Americans and Brits will live up to their end of that bargain if the rest of the bargain is kept.

If you ask "what is the point of this game" - - - one point - I believe, like you - is a military-industrial complex grown too large - out of balance --- out of good control.

You should work to obsolete them -- not reinforce them.

The weapons inspections should go on, Iraq, and other nations should do their best to facilitate the process - and we'll be in a much better situation to reduce excessive US military force and influence.

War might be avoided - probably would be avoided. If the US went to war in a morally indefensible way, even so - the better the effort to support the inspection - the weaker the overall US position in that event would be.

Screw up - and set up a war - shun the inspections - and that is just what Saddam looks like he's stupidly doing - - and exactly the opposite happens. It is a guaranteed disaster for both the Iraqi leadership and people - and reinforces every fear and concern you have, almarst.

almarst2002 - 09:25pm Nov 11, 2002 EST (# 5637 of 5651)

lunarchick 11/11/02 9:19pm

Exactly. In the West, the scorpion would wait to cross the river first.

rshow55 - 09:27pm Nov 11, 2002 EST (# 5638 of 5651) Delete Message
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 11/11/02 9:17pm . . die honorably resisting arms inspections under these circumstances?

I think you're being so emotional that you've lost your perspective - and are taking a crazy position.

All such "honor" will produce is a lot of rotting corpses.

The Iraqis should choose life.

If the weapons inspections can't avoid war - then there will be time to fight honorably.

Now, fighting instead of facing inspections is moral cowardice and crazy.

yplei - 09:30pm Nov 11, 2002 EST (# 5639 of 5651)

only test

almarst2002 - 09:32pm Nov 11, 2002 EST (# 5640 of 5651)

rshow55 11/11/02 9:23pm

"The weapons inspections should go on, Iraq, and other nations should do their best to facilitate the process - and we'll be in a much better situation to reduce excessive US military force and influence."

Only if you believe the disarmament is a goal. But what if disarmament is designed to make an agression less costly? Remember, the US insists it will not be tied by the UN. And any country can claim the Iraq still posesses WMD after any kind of inspections. Nothing could be arranged easier.

So, why to help the scorpion accross the river after one recognised its a Western Scorpion and not a butterfly it pretended to be some 20 years ago?

More Messages Recent Messages (11 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