New York Times Readers Opinions
The New York Times
Job Market
Real Estate
New York Region
NYT Front Page
Readers' Opinions

Dining & Wine
Home & Garden
Fashion & Style
New York Today
Week in Review
Learning Network
Book a Trip
Theater Tickets
Premium Products
NYT Store
NYT Mobile
E-Cards & More
About NYTDigital
Jobs at NYTDigital
Online Media Kit
Our Advertisers
Your Profile
E-Mail Preferences
News Tracker
Premium Account
Site Help
Privacy Policy
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 (5789 previous messages)

rshow55 - 10:00am Nov 15, 2002 EST (# 5790 of 5794) 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.

I spent more time than I expected looking for books - and will be 10:15 before I can write more than this, but I do have a reference that might make sense, by way of analogy to the problems raised in almarst2002 11/15/02 7:22am

rshow55 4/21/02 2:14pm ... rshow55 4/21/02 2:15pm
deals with a somewhat analogous set of problems of verification - and includes this.

"Trust or good will would not be necessary nor would they be assumed. Distrustful checking and deterrence would be used to provide the vital assurances the nation states would properly need.

"Direct observation . . . . by the enemies . . . would be as open as it could be made to be, and still be fast.

"Hostages from high status families in the two countries would be exchanged for the duration of the stand down, treated as honored guests who would nonetheless be killed if a first strike occurred.

A thought occurs to me. The "hostages" could be inspectors - and willing, interested, competent inspectors - who either were, or were connected to - rich and powerful people in interesting states - - guests of the Iraqis - and working to see that the inspection was real, credible - with records that CIA could not reasonably alter.

It could be done in ways that Iraqis, and the inspectors, might find glorious, interesting, and comfortable - if real disarmament was indeed the shared objective - or assumed to be the shared objective.

Back with more by 10:15.

With more about Iraq's defense needs, as I see them. And with something about my own defense needs - as well. I believe I may need a lawyer before this business is through - and I'll want help in getting a good one.

rshow55 - 10:13am Nov 15, 2002 EST (# 5791 of 5794) 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.

I had an error on my searching computers - so a reference I expected has to wait - -

but Fortune magazine publishes a list of the richest people in the world, and Saddam has connections to firms which could, quickly and as a favor, without discussion of quid pro quos - get that list, and find people on it who have at their disposal private airplanes - who care about business and peace - and who are likely to know other capable people (some from France and China) who might like to come and be guest-inspectors in Iraq for a short period of time.

rshow55 - 10:21am Nov 15, 2002 EST (# 5792 of 5794) 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.

It could be very interesting - the risk wouldn't have to be emphasized, and could even be denied - - it would be assumed.

"Going anywhere, and looking at anything" involved with WMD would be the objective - in ways that were mutually agreeable, seemed credible to the people involved - with the further objective that these things be done graciously - - as human beings trusting each other in at least some ways - distrustful in others -- interacting as human beings conversing, and doing each other mutual friends and favors.

Perhaps building longer term relationships, as well.

Four or five groups - - each with a private plane and technical resources at its disposal - would make evasion by Iraq harder than it would be with the UN alone - - and with care - would make faking by CIA prohibitively difficult, as well.

Perhaps especially if high status journalists (say, from Russia and China) were invited along as honored parts of some of the groups.

My guess is that the whole thing could be done efficiently, gracefully, and quickly - - and that corporations with business interests with Iraq might be able to help if there were any ways they felt they could.

None of these things could provide certain disarmanet in all thinkable respects. But probabilities of good checking could become very high - with the intelligent human beings who could easily be involved - and the connections that they have, both formal and informal.

More Messages Recent Messages (2 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