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 - 10:34am Jan 26, 2003 EST (# 8099 of 8107)

commondata - <a href="/webin/WebX?14@93.ZIQUajmL1i2.617071@.f28e622/9586">commondata 1/26/03 4:18am</a>

(more)

"...Why not present your evidence for the link between AQ and Iraq? As you so often use that as a reason for war, I'd say you have an obligation."

While a proven link between AQ and Iraq would be ample grounds for unilateral US action against Iraq, the reported links between AQ and Iraq are not being used in that way. Iraq's failure to comply with UN resolution 1441 is the principal basis for coalition action against Iraq.

In my view the dangerous fallacy is that if Saddam Hussein is just left alone he will do no harm. He has been insisting for years on maintaining UN sanctions against his own people rather than coming clean WRT his WMD programs. He does harm every day. Why? Well, I don't think it's because Saddam's just nice guy who wants WMD that he can chat with his neighbors about at teatime.

lchic - 10:39am Jan 26, 2003 EST (# 8100 of 8107)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

If 'believe sets' are 'virtuals' - in the mind ... then the UN should muscle up and move that all Nation States be based on SECULAR foundations.

If economicThinkTanks ThinkGlobally then there should be a resolve to look to improving employment world wide.

Saying " The devil (bad) finds work for idle hands " may be an old truism ... were the USA's anti-terrorist thrust to have economic stimulus to replace the void of 'unemployed' ... then it might be better accepted.

Talking with Showalter he often refers to conceptual and practical historical innovation as being the 'spectator sport' of the age .... perhaps of this age 'the delivery of jobs' is the new sport --- so how can the world move towards job creation delivering 'long term stable' jobs?

commondata - 10:46am Jan 26, 2003 EST (# 8101 of 8107)

lchic, I've skimmed that discussion you reference; Chemist accuses Cantabb of getting him fired; Cantabb responds:

cantabb #13590, On his personal difficulties (Job & health), I have already expressed my sympathies, and sincerely ! But these have NOTHING to do with ME !

Then much, much bickering. I still can't see how that links GJ with wrcooper, but I'll let that one go, except to say that even access to the NYT forum database is not enough to establish the identities of careful posters.

Gisterme, I'd bet that there will be a lot more information about this soon though. We'll see.

That's information we need before we go to war, not afterwards.

the reported links between AQ and Iraq are not being used ...

Without demonstrable evidence it would be criminal to go to war on that basis. So why has it been such a large part of the US propaganda effort? Why has every goverment employee from the Whitehouse down been charged with trying to find such a link? Why do 50% of Americans believe that Saddam organised the WTC attack? Because Bush first decided to go to war and only then realised he had to find a reason.

In my view the dangerous fallacy is that if Saddam Hussein is just left alone he will do no harm.

Fine. You're talking about killing a lot of people. Find the evidence to back that belief up and you'll have some support. Then use the same metrics to judge the potential harm of other regimes and apply them equitably. Do it in cooperation with the rest of world who then may have some sympathy with you.

gisterme - 11:11am Jan 26, 2003 EST (# 8102 of 8107)

commondata - 10:46am Jan 26, 2003 EST (# 8101...)

WRT AQ-Iraq link...

"That's information we need before we go to war, not afterwards"

Naa. That's why the US is not about to unilaterally remove Saddam. According to Colin Powell there are at least twelve nations that will stand with the US no matter what the UN thinks. We're already at war, commondata. I wish it weren't so.

Are you really a talking horse??? Wiiiiiilbur! That was a nice post. You're absolutely right about what's said on these forums not making any difference to world affairs. All these forums are good for is letting we individuals express our views, right or wrong. That's why the forums are under a "reader's opinons" link. I wish Robert could somehow get that through his head.

lchic - 11:24am Jan 26, 2003 EST (# 8103 of 8107)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Commondata - WRCOOPER at one point put up info supposedly relating to him ... building 'the character' .... but his info didn't stand up to deep searching and cross checking ... it actually lead back to 'Johnson' ...

Interesting how any critism of Bush, Johnson or the NYT will bring a moniker to the thread to either divert or digress.

When you review your disc you may observe the sometimes changing 'personality' of certain ... what Showalter refers to as 'staffed' monikers ....

BBC - British Public don't feel threatened by Saddam --- if he had weapons of mass distruction he could-have attacked Israel (GeorgeJONES DailyTelegraph) ...

Tony Blair keeps saying 'we have got the evidence' yet hasn't made a public case

(4 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense