New York Times Readers Opinions
The New York Times
Home
Job Market
Real Estate
Automobiles
News
International
National
Washington
Campaigns
Business
Technology
Science
Health
Sports
New York Region
Education
Weather
Obituaries
NYT Front Page
Corrections
Opinion
Editorials/Op-Ed
Readers' Opinions


Features
Arts
Books
Movies
Travel
Dining & Wine
Home & Garden
Fashion & Style
New York Today
Crossword/Games
Cartoons
Magazine
Week in Review
Multimedia
College
Learning Network
Services
Archive
Classifieds
Book a Trip
Personals
Theater Tickets
Premium Products
NYT Store
NYT Mobile
E-Cards & More
About NYTDigital
Jobs at NYTDigital
Online Media Kit
Our Advertisers
Member_Center
Your Profile
E-Mail Preferences
News Tracker
Premium Account
Site Help
Privacy Policy
Newspaper
Home Delivery
Customer Service
Electronic Edition
Media Kit
Community Affairs
Text Version
TipsGo to Advanced Search
Search Options divide
go to Member Center Log Out
  

 [F] 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.


Earliest Messages Previous Messages Recent Messages Outline (7003 previous messages)

almarst2002 - 11:15pm Dec 24, 2002 EST (# 7004 of 7012)

I am still trying to absorb a wealth of very intersting things posted by Robert and Lunarchick.

I think in a past decade we got plenty of the Chinese wish "May you live in an interesting times".

My best wishes to all of you in a New Year.

Alex.

kalter.rauch - 02:15am Dec 25, 2002 EST (# 7005 of 7012)
Earth vs <^> <^> <^>

rshow55 12/24/02 5:09pm

I have a "thought question." For myself, I don't see an objection to it...

Suppose we agreed to discuss a resolution where all U.S. troops left Korea, and where the US did agree to a nonagression pact with North Korea - if there was real peace - and real elimination of Korea's threats to us - both weapons of mass destruction, and missile proliferation?

NO, Rshow, of COURSE you don't see any objection to it...because you've deluded yourself over, or managed to IGNORE, the political reality that EXISTS...TODAY...and HAS EXISTED for the last half century.

There IS NO (that means "NO", not "North") Korea. There's NEVER going to BE a Korea if it means abandoning SOUTH Korea to NORTH Korea. There's NOT going to be a replay of the Vietnam War where we deluded ourselves that a treaty with communists means what it says. When you say "threats to us" you DO include South Korea on the "us" side, don't you???

WE (and that means South Korea and the UN) can't very well sign a "non-aggression pact with North Korea until a Peace Treaty is signed and the North Koreans stand down from their extremely menacing forward deployed positions on the 38th parallel AND greatly reduce the size and offensive capabilities of their armed forces. Not only that but the North Koreans HAVE to abandon their communist system, free ALL political prisoners, and deliver their ENTIRE LEADERSHIP, down to the level of concentration camp guards, over to a UN determined (ie. US and South Korean, by all rights) military tribunal for summary execution!!!

In the meantime, until the above MIRACLE occurs, the US needs to TRIPLE its forces in South Korea and deploy the "assets" necessary to liquidate the North Korean armored and artillery units along the DMZ at the SLIGHTEST PROVOCATION!!!

Merry Christmas!!!

lunarchick - 03:36am Dec 25, 2002 EST (# 7006 of 7012)

Korean border USA troups today

37,000 multiply by 3 gives

111,000 tomorrow

Still Gives 'The Poster' a chance to join up and see the world .... well one little border of it!

lunarchick - 04:04am Dec 25, 2002 EST (# 7007 of 7012)

Alex - Thanks for your kind words, and thoughts for the New Year ... much appreciated.

lunarchick - 04:11am Dec 25, 2002 EST (# 7008 of 7012)

Summary Execution North Korea

What does the poster mean 'exactly' re use of 'summary exection' ...

Did Showalter say take out USA military and leave a vacuum --- didn't read that!

kalter.rauch - 04:14am Dec 25, 2002 EST (# 7009 of 7012)
Earth vs <^> <^> <^>

lunarchick 12/25/02 3:36am

Don't forget...it's NOT just the US soldiers...they're allied with South Korean detachments, who are facing at LEAST a half million crazed communist shock troops, armed to the teeth and willing to die for "The Dear Leader", Kim Jong Il.

The North Koreans KNOW we're not going to strike first...despite SecDef Rumsfeld's bluster. No...the US and South Koreans will absorb 10s of thousands of casualties before delivering a counter-blow SO DEVASTATING that it will turn the DMZ into a seething canal of radioactive molten glass!!!

...and THEN our tanks will roll over the vitrified commie masses all the way to Pyongyang!!! We'll seek out "The Dear Leader" from his lair beneath his desk and drag him by the feet back to Seoul so he can stand trial for Crimes Against Humanity!!!

lunarchick - 04:27am Dec 25, 2002 EST (# 7010 of 7012)

http://www.worldtrek.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/kim_jong_il.htm

More Messages Recent Messages (2 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Your Preferences

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  / Missile Defense





Home | Back to Readers' Opinions Back to Top


Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company | Privacy Policy | Contact Us