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 - 01:46am Dec 22, 2002 EST (# 6904 of 6923)

rshow55 12/21/02 8:40pm

"...After all, the whole Islamic world, these days, even including oil, has a GDP not much larger than that of Spain. Subtract the oil, and you have only enough to support squalor. And the oil money comes to a few individuals or governments - leaving most of the population as supplicants."

I'll trust your comparison of the GDP of the middle east and Spain, Robert although that seems kind of amazing.

Here's some interesting stuff that makes me think that may be right:

An excerpt from: http://www.csis.org/mideast/reports/MEenergy.html

In several cases, Middle Eastern states are either already at war, or there is a serious risk of future conflict. Mauritania is the scene of a low-level race war between Arabs and Black Africans. Morocco is still in the process of a long war with the Polisario for control of the Western Sahara. Algeria is involved in a bitter civil war between its ruling military junta and Islamic extremists. Tensions have grown between Libya's leader, Muammar Qadhafi and Libya's Islamists and there is low-level fighting in a number of areas. Also, the Egyptian government is fighting Islamic terrorists.

In spite of the Arab-Israeli peace process, Israel is still formally at war with Syria and Lebanon, and faces a serious rejectionist threat from terrorists, Iran, and Iraq. Israel is also involved in an active low-level conflict on its northern border with the Hezbollah - a Shi'ite Islamic movement with strong Iranian and Syrian sponsorship. Lebanon remains under Syrian and Israeli occupation, and its factions still present the threat of another round of civil war.

The Southern Gulf states are relatively stable, but serious tensions exist between Bahrain and Qatar, there is civil violence in Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia and Yemen continue to clash along their common border. While Iran may be becoming more moderate, there is still a serious risk of internal clashes between its "moderates" and "traditionalists," and it presents a major problem in terms of both proliferation and continued hostility to any U.S. presence in the Gulf. Iraq remains a serious potential threat to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, and is certain to resume its military build-up and efforts to proliferate the moment UN sanctions are lifted.

The Red Sea area is the scene of several conflicts. The Sudanese civil war threatens to enter its second decade, and the death toll from fighting and starvation will probably exceed well over one million. Yemen faces growing tensions between its government and key tribal groups in the South, and continues to clash with Eritrea over the control of islands in the Red Sea.

Most Middle East states suffer from internal political, economic, and demographic problems that compound these intra-regional conflicts and tensions. Virtually all Middle East states have repressive regimes with a high degree of authoritarianism - regardless of whether the ruler is called a King, Sheik, Sultan, President, General, or Ayatollah. Virtually all suffer from weak or failed economic development, high rates of population growth and a virtual youth explosion, aging and largely authoritarian regimes, and serious problems with internal stability.

Yup. That shoe would seem to fit.

gisterme - 03:11am Dec 22, 2002 EST (# 6905 of 6923)

rshow55 12/21/02 8:41pm

Nice post, Robert...reaches to the true heart of a lot of problems.

"...Even so, the political and religious restrictions on experiment and diversity in the Arab world are extreme - performance so far, outside of oil, has been dismal - and if Western experience is any guide, the political and religious restrictions in place essentially rule out the main sources of Western economic growth.

Some obeservations:

Do you think the political leadership in those countries doesn't know about this, Robert? One must assume they do. If they do, then to whom would the message be communicated? Think about that question for a minute or two and you'll begin to see what a huge problem it poses. Let's call that a dot, Robert.

Compound that with the message being pounded into the young folks there, taught in Madrassas and shouted from pulpits, the message that America and the West are the cause of all their problems and that embracing western-style economic methods and prosperity are anathema...whew...that's ugly! Call that a second dot...

Could that be happening without the knowledge of the political leadership in those places? Of course not. Call that a third dot...

Who could do something about economic conditions in those ME countries? The political or religious leadership, of course. Call that a fourth dot...

Those same political leaders are doing almost nothing in most of those countries. Call that a fifth dot.

Religious leaders in those countries are doing much. Call that a sixth dot.

Now let's try to connect the dots. Reiterating:

1. The reasons that the kind of economic success found in the West is not found in the ME countries are known by political leadership.

2. A rabid anti-western, mostly untruthful doctrine is being taught by religious leaders to their youth, one that would be counter-productive to hopes of their countries ever acheiving the kind of economic success enjoyed in the west. One that blames their own lack of success on the west, as if the wealth in the west should really have been theirs.

3. The political leaders in those countries are well aware of this while they enjoy their lavish lifestyles.

4. The political leaders in those places are presumabley the only folks who could peacefully do something about the situation.

5. The political leaders in those places are doing almost nothing.

6. The religious leaders in those places are doing much.

(continued)

(18 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense