New York Times Readers Opinions
The New York Times

Home
Job Market
Real Estate
Automobiles
News
International
National
Washington
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
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 (8482 previous messages)

lchic - 11:47pm Feb 1, 2003 EST (# 8483 of 8494)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

almarst2002 has interesting links ...

US is misquoting my Iraq report, says Blix - http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/01/31/1043804520548.html

Powell Is Not Bringing 'a Smoking Gun' Against Iraq to the U.N. Next Week, U.S. Official Says - http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGAH0VVOLBD.html

Bush's moral clarity turns fuzzy - http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1035776907012&call_pageid=968256290204&col=968350116795

Congress is backing the President's Iraq war plans, and in many cases media coverage is focused on when we might go to war, or what kind of war it's likely to be. But that pushes aside much discussion of what some say is another form of warfare, the ongoing economic sanctions against Iraq. Fairfield University professor Joy Gordon has written a shocking account of how the UN sanctions process really works in the new edition of Harper's Magazine. - http://www.webactive.com/webactive/cspin/cspin20021018.html

Today's outrage was yesterday's no big deal - http://www.fair.org/extra/0209/iraq-gas.html

Who Really Gassed the Kurds? - http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/31/opinion/31PELL.html?ex=1045030380&ei=1&en=97b6c3c76ea6ffe5

Carter Says Bush Has 'Not Made a Case' for War - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8118-2003Jan31.html

ledzeppelin - 06:29am Feb 2, 2003 EST (# 8484 of 8494)

Whilst there may well be compelling evidence for ensuring one protects ones state from a ‘so called’ rogue states missiles. However one must not lose sight of the simple fact that such a system can be interpreted by others as being a weapon with the potential for a global imperialism as it could easily have the ability for an attacking capability.

Correspondingly a missile defence shield at this time in reality can in fact create more rogue states and terror networks than it set out to originally protect the US from, such as those designated within the axis of evil.

Indeed would a rogue state or terror group that wishes to act in a hostile manner to the USA use a missile based delivery system in any event.

In the 1990’s even the North Koreans as well as OBL et al., were trying to buy the technology and materials for a nuke in a suitcase. Whatismore given the research executed by the British Government back in the 1950’s in Australia under the vixen research programme this documents only to well the devastating effect upon a population even a crude or ‘so called’ dirty bomb of the size that can be accommodated by an every day briefcase would have.

What is the saying keep your enemies close but your friends even closer, to day’s friend can so easily be tomorrow’s enemy without one realising or knowing it, until the bang that is. Therefore I would fund the conventional security organisations such as the CIA and FBI etc., with the Star Wars programmes money until such time as these organisations have real time intelligence gathering capability within the camps of the friends as well as the known enemies before I even worried about missiles from rogue states.

lchic - 06:59am Feb 2, 2003 EST (# 8485 of 8494)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Friends ---- means to end

Enemies ---- latter day friends

Friendships end

Yesterday's friend --- And this day's end ?

dR3

lchic - 07:03am Feb 2, 2003 EST (# 8486 of 8494)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

All the way with LBJ ... 80,000 folks were murdered in Bali over a two week period ... LBJ commended and funded Suharto 1966.

lchic - 07:09am Feb 2, 2003 EST (# 8487 of 8494)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Why do 'Evil-Presidents' form alliances, Friendships--Endships?

Why isn't the voice, the 'need' of the regular person heard?

Why would a President-Nation-Government with Nuclear Missiles change allegiance?

Who do Presidents serve - themselves, henchmen, tribe, or the people?

More Messages Recent Messages (7 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 2003 The New York Times Company | Privacy Policy | Contact Us