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.

rshow55 - 01:36pm Jan 24, 2003 EST (# 7997 of 8009)
Can we do a better job of finding truth? YES. Click "rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have done and worked for on this thread.

To U.S., Onus Is on Hussein By MICHAEL R. GORDON http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/24/international/middleeast/24ASSE.html

The Bush administration's case against Iraq can be summed up in one sentence: Iraq has not led United Nations inspectors to the weapons Washington insists Baghdad is hiding.

In the administration's most comprehensive policy statement to date, the deputy defense secretary, Paul D. Wolfowitz, argued yesterday that inspectors are not investigators who patiently try to peel away the layers of deception to get to the facts. Rather, they can only perform spot checks to determine if Iraq is voluntarily disarming itself.

. . . .

" I have heard far more of a case from you this morning than I have heard in bits and pieces in the last several months of illustrations," William Webster, a former head of the C.I.A., told Mr. Wolfowitz during the council meeting. " I'm wondering to what extent a strategy can be developed to provide more factual intelligence in a way that does not prejudice, of course, sources and methods, but makes the case in a way that the American people can understand it and be willing to support it."

Webster is a very polite and sympathetic critic - but what he says makes clear that, as of now, the Bush administration is asking its citizens, and other nations, to support a war with Iraq on the basis blind faith.

The administrations's arguments may be supported by evidence that could stand the light of day - but such evidence has not yet been made available.

Iraq has made a lot of evidence available. The administration says not enough - and not in the right ways.

We don't have a workable set of agreements that do what people need them to do - and won't - even after a war - until the key things that actually matter for action are clearer to the people involved.

If the key things that actually matter for action were clear - we probably wouln't need a war - or, if there was one, we'd be a lot clearer that it was actually necessary.

The Bush administration is right that more openness from Iraq would be very desirable - but it isn't a bit clear that getting rid of Saddam would achieve that - what Islamic nation does show the level of openness that the Bush administration is asking for?

At the same time, the Bush administration is showing a remarkable degree of secrecy itself.

rshow55 - 01:37pm Jan 24, 2003 EST (# 7998 of 8009)
Can we do a better job of finding truth? YES. Click "rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have done and worked for on this thread.

If the Bush administration had taken the positions it is now taken during the last Security Council meetings on Iraq - the agreement gotten then would never have been arrived at. There might have been a war then - with a lot less definition, and a lot more chaos, than there will be if there is a military intervention now. So that was progress.

Now, if the same kinds of jobs done then are applied to the current case - things may be further clarified - and the need for a fight may fade away - or become a much easier military matter for almost everybody involved.

If the US simply decides that it must insist on hegemony - it will be making some important historical decisions - that will have enormous effects on what the idea of international law means.

To Some in Europe, the Major Problem Is Bush the Cowboy By DAVID E. SANGER http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/24/international/europe/24ALLI.html ends as follows:

One senior diplomat predicted the next few weeks "will be the defining moment on whether the United States decides to stay within the international system."

That would seem to be very inconsistent with what Wolfowitz says the administration wants. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/24/international/middleeast/24ASSE.html Is the inconsistency what they actually intend?

If the US does stay within the international system - we may be at a very hopeful juncture - where a lot can clarify, according to the same kind of interactions that occurred at the Security Council last time. That might be a triumph for the US, for the UN, and for a world that needs international law - and is slowly focusing on what international law has to be.

If the US does opt to withdraw from the international system - it will be a new day - with very new opportunities and big new risks - and there will have to be a lot of rethinking - all over the world - and in the United States. US voters will be surprised at how everything the US claimed it was working for for fifty years has been thrown away, to save the US from a risk that may now be tiny, if it is real at all.

(11 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense