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.

gisterme - 07:55pm Dec 15, 2002 EST (# 6683 of 6685)

almarst2002 12/15/02 3:10pm

"...I don't think any nation today can wage an effective war against US.

Question is, does any nation have a right to resist the US and in what way?"

That question has an obvious answer, Almarst. Of course they have a right to resist the US or any other foreign nation who invades them. They have the absolute right to resist in any way they want and can. However, the presumption that that your question is predicated upon is that something is being done that shouldn't be done. The question presumes that any invasion should be resisted.

The distinction between a "nation" , its leadership and the desire of its people must be made. Did France or Russia have a right to resist Hitler's invasion and occupation of thier countries? Of course they did. Did the people of France or Russia want to resist what Hitler was doing to them? Of course they did. Did Germans who realized the truth about what Hitler was doing to them try to resist? Yes. They were all killed. Was Hitler doing something that shouldn't have been done??? Of course he was. Should the French have resisted the Normandy invasion because it was the invasion of a foreign army? Of course not. That invasion was for the liberation of France. Even though it was the largest amphibious invasion in history it was welcomed by the people of France. The point is that Hitler was not Germany (as he believed) and Saddam Hussein is not Iraq. The will of a leader and and the majority of his people are seldom the same within dictatorships.

If the US or any other nation is willing to use its power to pursue a righteous cause, such as the liberation of France from Hitler or Iraq from Saddam, one would only expect the people being liberated to resist only if they didn't want to be liberated.

I doubt very much that Iraqis will offer more than token resistance to the removal of their dictator and restoration of liberty in their nation by whatever means it may come. In hindsight, I'd say that that liberation is what the Iraqi people expected but didn't receive back in 1991. Do you suppose that's why they didn't resist much back then?

If that's the case then there's something we might blame on the US...failure to lead the 1991 coalition to the liberaton of Iraq.

However, the reason that Saddam survived that war to cause all the grief and misery he has since was fear of public opinion within the US administration...fear of political backlash that might occur if the US proceeded beyond its strict UN mandate. It might be called Cold War cold feet.

What seems ironic today is that the America-hating media folks that were feared back then, feared to the extent that they saved Saddam's regime, are the very same ones who are now trying to blame the US for the consequences of not liberating Iraq back then. Of course, those folks aren't honest enough to frame their current complaints in those terms because of their own fear that their hypocracy will be revealed. I think it's truly said that "what goes around comes around". (continued)

gisterme - 07:56pm Dec 15, 2002 EST (# 6684 of 6685)

gisterme 12/15/02 7:55pm(continued)

The lesson forgotten by the US administration back in 1991 was "all we have to fear is fear itself". Had there not been that fear of public opinion within the US administraion back then, most all of those Iraqi children that the America-haters presently claim have been killed by US policies would be alive today.

We live and we learn. Back in 1991 the Iraqis had no promise of liberation from tyranny; yet, it's easy to presume that based on an unpromised hope they resisted very little. I wonder how much less they would resist today were they to be given a promise of liberation or even irresistable support for their own revolution?

(1 following message)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense