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 - 01:21am Dec 23, 2002 EST (# 6966 of 6975)

lunarchick 12/22/02 7:59pm

"...Lets say there was ONE superpower that gave others in the world only a single 'choice' wrt matters that affected their future..."

Gotta be a bit more specific than that, lchic. If the choice were about bicycles, I'd agree with you completely. But what if the choice is about WMD proliferation? What if the one choice offered by the superpower (not to mention a world-wide coalition) is "you can't develop nuclear bombs or the missiles to deliver them."? Does that seem arrogant to you?

I admire your libertarian ideal, lchic, but as you are applying it, it flys in the face of our common desire to rid the world of nuclear weapons. Are you saying Saddam should have the choice to develop nuclear weapons? If so, then why shouldn't he have the choice to buy them from anybody he wants and why shouldn't those of posses them have the choice to sell them to whomever they want? I believe you should rethink your arguement. Try to stop hating America long enough to consider the benefit it is trying to help bring about in the world.

Is it arrogance to give a deadly disease only one choice? I think not.

Consider another concept: If a superpower, having that power, accomplishes nothing good for the world by the use if it, then the superpower will not remain so for long. Its failure to accomplish the good deed will return the world to chaos until another superpower able to accomplish the deed emerges. Yet if the good deed is accomplished, the need for the extraordinary power will no longer exist. By Darwinian effect, once a niche dissapears, so does that which fills the niche. I think that superpowers, like species, emerge and dissapear as the need for them arises and dissapears..

Looking at the historical rise and fall of powers and principalities through that filter is a thought provoking exercise. You should try it sometime. It's even more interesting if you think of mankind as a species that is developing toward a certain end...to fill an even larger niche in this world as a species.

In my view, removing the superpower niche is the way we the world will see a real peace benefit. There will be nothing virtual about it. That, in my view, is the ultimate (today virtual, tomorrow real) solution to the problem of WMD.

gisterme - 03:19am Dec 23, 2002 EST (# 6967 of 6975)

rshow55 12/22/02 8:38pm

"...people can look for themselves, and judge for themselves..."

Now there's a foundation shaking statement. :-) I'm glad you let all the forum readers in on that, Robert. Seriously though, you don't have to prove that by me. Who doesn't do that?

"...I have no reason whatsoever to believe you when you "give your word."..."

You say that even though you can't show one case where I've lied to you throughout a couple of years of gisterme posts. That's because I haven't lied to you, Robert. I definately hold the high ground in that department.

"...For one thing, if you do represent the Bush administration - that administration has worked hard and explicitly - sometimes in courts - to preserve its "right to lie."..."

Then that means that since I don't represent the Bush administration it hasn't done what you say. So far as I know that's right. Why else would you include the logical "if switch" were you did in your statement?

"...If you're just another poster..."

I am.

"... - I can, and others can - judge the likelyhood of your words by looking at your words - your arguments. And by the record. Which is now an extensive one..."

You're having a hard time with your logic tonight, Robert. Your statement implies that if I am not just another poster, you and others can't judge. :-) You know that's not true. But, I'll respond to your comment anyway as what I think you meant.

Firstly, the words and statements are there...that is the record isn't it? There's no likelyhood or judegement involved with determining that.

What I think you meant to say is that you and others can judge the veracity of my or anybody else's words and arguements. Of course you and they can. Just don't forget that the result of such judgement is entirely subjective to the quality of same. Folks with good judgement will believe a truthful thing right away. Others may take a bit longer.

As for the extensiveness of the record, that's the best evidence I can present that my words and ideas are sincere and truthful. You're the one who should be worried about people looking at the record and judging, Robert. I'm not worried about that at all.

(continued)

(8 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense