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.

wrcooper - 04:37pm Jan 31, 2003 EST (# 8417 of 8421)

In re: [almarst2002] http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@93.M8iNaVaQ1Hu.190468@.f28e622/9942

Thanks.

Sure, a rogue nation such as Korea may develop a long-range missile, but such nations aren't the real threat. Is it likely that China would stand idly by while a tinpot dictator like Kim tried to blackmail other Asian nations, upsetting the region's stability? Deterrence worked in the past, and there's no reason why it can't work in the future.

BMD is a waste of money. It fosters an illusion of security, which perhaps plays well politically, but it's almost worse than useless as far as preventing a strike against the country by a determined terrorist group in possession of a BCN weapon.

Our action in Iraq is aimed, I think, more at forestalling Saddam from handing out BCNs to terrorist groups rather than preventing him from using them himself against his neighbors. The U.S. is determined not to let Saddam's Iraq become the armory of terrorism.

rshow55 - 04:44pm Jan 31, 2003 EST (# 8418 of 8421)
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.

I think 8413 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@93.M8iNaVaQ1Hu.190468@.f28e622/9939 . . is a profoundly important post, gisterme .

Could AMERICA be part of the problem?

When you talk of "men like that" - - are you talking about people who are being treated with contempt?

Has the United States become a machine for making "men like that" - - much too often?

Think about how you, and the people you know, actually react when forced.

If someone tries to impose something on you gisterme, - or the average Texan - and deals with you with contempt - don't you resist - ? Don't you want to decieve the person or group which is imposing on you, and treating you with contempt? If you're a leader - don't the people who follow you expect that?

I think that 8413 is very important - and ought to be discussed - and treated as basic. If this is a key belief of the Bush administration - it is important to deal with it. I think there are plenty of people outside of America who ought to be interested in doing so, many of them longtime allies.

I do believe that

"...were analysis done, by teams, of the 'talk' prior to a war .... then the teams might identify common recurring problems ... and work them through..."

I also believe - and I think historians, looking at details would agree - that even dealing with a Stalin, a Hitler, or a Hirohito - a combination of force and talk can offer stable, good arrangements. That is, arrangements much better than war typically produces. Arrangements that can be much better now that information flows make tyranny a lot less stable than it used to be - though too stable still.

The United States has to learn to deal with others - even "enemies" - so that peace is possible - - not classify it out of existence.

I think the United States should actually discuss the possibility that peace with Iraq is possible on ways that preserve the self respect of the Iraqi people, and Iraqi government - as it is.

Specifically, I'd like the United States to discuss - in detail - with real communication with others, including the nations of Islam, the following question. How can we arrange things - with minimum cost, mayhem, and risk, so that Iraq can keep its word, as states in

. Iraq States Its Case by MOHAMMED ALDOURI http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/17/opinion/17ALDO.html

in a way that works for both the United States and Iraq - and can be explained, and understood to be workable and fair - to the rest of the world.

I think similar questions can be, and should be, asked about North Korea, where issues of respect, and forbearance, seem to be at the center of the difficulties as well.

Sometimes punishment is vitally important. But not always. There are other values, too - and things can be too complex for any kind of "simple justice" - so people have to do the best they can. Mankind's Inhumanity to Man and Woman - As natural as human goodness? http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7b085/401 358-367

Sounds practical to me. Without a lot of motion from where things are. Wouldn't be surprised if President Bush didn't have a lot of things well organized for just such a discussion - which would be in the interest of the whole world - and definitely in the interest of the United States.

(3 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense