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.

lunarchick - 03:43am Nov 21, 2002 EST (# 6045 of 6048)

Almarst made a point regarding arrogance (above) ... an arrogance demo-ed here by 'The Poster'.

One is forever amazed at the failure of the 'run of the mill' posters here to appreciate the need for acculturation - even manners - wrt an understanding and appreciation of internationals on this thread.

An example of how Brits & Russians work together ... Peter the Great didn't bother to pop over to the USA back then ... it was mere abyss cp to Europe .. some think it still is!

""The celebration of 300th anniversary of Peter the Great's Embassy to Britain is the main event of the whole year. Our May Conference is included into the programme of the celebration. In April members attended an extremely interesting conference on Russian-British links, organised by the St. Petersburg Department of Foreign Languages, Russian Academy of sciences. The participants had a pleasure of listening to a variety of talks on historical, literature and cultural issues presented by British and Russian speakers. see

commondata - 07:46am Nov 21, 2002 EST (# 6046 of 6048)

rshow55 11/20/02 9:01pm -- the Iraq situation is a clear deal - - let's get past that - and the way will be open to a much clearer and more powerful international law - that has a much better chance of adressing your (valid) concerns.

I'm moving slowly and I'm not sure I've got passed that yet. Why is the domestic rule of law widely respected and adhered to? Why does it work? Here are some simple reasons:

- When laws are arrived at democratically, consensually, transparently, after argument and debate they express the broad will of the people.

- What constitutes transgression and the penalties for transgression are clear to all.

- Penalties for transgression are applied equitably.

All of these principles are "missing in action" when it comes to Iraq and in the system of international law generally.

- The rules are made by a handful of big economic powers, especially the US, throwing their weight about for selfish economic reasons (OIL).

- Iraq was supported by the US after they'd used gas because it was in the US's broader strategic interests to do so (OIL). The use of gas, repellent and obnoxious as it was, pales into insignificance compared to attrocities committed by the US.

- There are many regimes with appalling human rights records that the US is great friends with.

How can you advocate punishing millions of people for the actions of a few? I'm glad you managed to get passed all that, rshow, but I think I'll be dawdling behind for a long while yet.

(2 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense