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 - 02:03pm Feb 7, 2003 EST (# 8660 of 8660)
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 it is a hopeful as well as a troubled time.

" If the result is war, it will be a great human failure and tragedy - but the consequences for the world will still be far better than they would have been without the negotiation. If the result is peaceful, practical disarmament - it will be a great and historical step toward a better world.

. . . .

Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits any nation from using force. The Charter contains only two exceptions: when such force is employed in self-defense or when it is authorized by the UN Security Council.

That part of international law is being renegotiated - with some exception handling put into place. I disagree with the Bush administration in some spots - but think they are entirely right that a blanket prohibition on the use of force is simply not workable. This is an area where renegotiation is occurring - and there will be some exception handling put into place. There has to be.

Sometimes fights have to happen. Many of the problems of the world, these days, occur because there haven't been nearly enough fights - on things that actually matter - and that fighting, when it occurs - is not well thought out - and, too often, stupidly executed.

Fights have costs. Sometimes high ones. Sometimes prohibitive costs.

Muddles and contradictions have costs, as well. Sometimes costs so high that the costs of fighting have to be borne.

If people had sense enough to see that obvious fact - a lot of things could be sorted out at much lower human costs than are currently being incurred.

Without some reasonable exception handling about fights - better than any now clearly in place - - international law just isn't workable.

. . . .

. . . sometimes there have to be decisions. My guess is that, many more times than not - my ideas about proper decisions would match Annan's. But there are times when decisions have to be made - even at the price of conflict.

Case in point:

If Bin Laden and his people believe that the only acceptable outcome of their efforts is the defeat of all modern values - and the substitution of fundamentalist Islam, Sharia laws and all - it is reasonable -- and yes, I think moral - to fight about that. Even if, perchance, the fight involves the death of many of Bin Laden's supporters. Even if, perhaps, some innocents also die - though that is something to be minimized, whenever and however possible.

Ideally, fights should be at the level of ideas. But if that isn't possible - - there are times when the costs of ongoing muddle are high enough to warrant fighting.

After a point, no matter how "good" your rules are -- there has to be some exception handling.

. . . .

It seems to me that, for all the sound and fury, and justified fear - and all the losses, compared to what could occur with better arrangements - there are things that could be accomplished that would deal with most of Almarst's concerns - if we keep working, and stay concerned about stability.

Though "collateral damage" will never be entirely avoidable in war, and we're some way from reducing risks and costs as much as we could, and should.

'Wilson's Ghost: Reducing the Risk of Conflict, Killing, and Catastrophe in the 21st Century' by ROBERT S. McNAMARA and JAMES G. BLIGHT http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/29/books/chapters/29-1stmcnam.html bears careful reading, with emotions and analyticial capacities both working at adult levels.

Indignation can have its uses, but sometimes, Almarst , I think it may get in your way, as you work (often both hard and effectively) to make things better.

The Bush administration, for all its faults - is looking for solutions to problems that are real - and doing so in public

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense