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 - 06:43pm Nov 17, 2002 EST (# 5882 of 5889)

Robert,

Would you or Bush be so ready for War if not for the feeling of invulnorabilty? Of easy victory? Of disregard for the consequences for thousends of Iraqi people?

rshow55 - 06:48pm Nov 17, 2002 EST (# 5883 of 5889)
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.

We're in the process of negotiating a workable international law - - we're a long way from the Wild West -- and with careful negotiation on the part of other nations - we can come out of this much safer than today.

But threats matter. And reasonable judgements about self preservation matter. After what Saddam has said and done - I think the US has been behaving reasonably. If Saddam does not disarm, I can't for the life of me see a good reason not to take him down.

Pandora's box? If the inspection process goes reasonably - the processes ongoing will make us safer - especially if Saddam is sane, but even otherwise.

- - -

Note on why Islam is special. People have noticed what the Islamic clerics say - Bin Laden's actions - and the widespread sympathy for Bin Laden in the Arab world. They've noticed the stunning backwardness of the Arab nations - dispite all their oil wealth.

If a group of people, motivated by chauvanism or nationalism, took such actions and made such threats - Americans would act to defend themselves.

The thing that impresses me is how unspecial that Islamic nations have managed to be - over a long time - without anybody from the outside having to "oppress" them much.

rshow55 - 06:51pm Nov 17, 2002 EST (# 5884 of 5889)
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 11/17/02 6:43pm . . . I think the consequences are likely to be serious - and I don't think Bush is nearly as confident of an easy victory as some may think. American military people, by and large, are very apprehensive.

All the same, it seems to me that now, after so many weeks of Security Council negotiation - and Iraq's own words - the time for Iraq to disarm is now - - and if they refuse - it will make sense - militarily, and morally too, to take the regime down.

rshow55 - 06:57pm Nov 17, 2002 EST (# 5885 of 5889)
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.

5812 rshow55 11/16/02 10:06am

almarst2002 - 07:09pm Nov 17, 2002 EST (# 5886 of 5889)

"The thing that impresses me is how unspecial that Islamic nations have managed to be - over a long time - without anybody from the outside having to "oppress" them much. "

Could it be just an indicator of their great tolerance and peacefull non-aggresive nature? It used to be very difficalt to raise the Muslim masses for aggresive militant actions. But things are changing before our eyes. The war and occupation against Iraq will just add the oil to the fire. And, in my personal view, very dangerously and unreasonably. It is laughtable to proclaim the Saddam the most dangerous man on Earth today. Surely, very fiew outside the US could believe such a claim. Seemingly, not all even in US, drone under the quite unscrupules propaganda effort, believe that. And quite large a majority see the control of the Iraqi OIL the main reason for aggression.

(3 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense