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.

almarst2002 - 04:39pm Feb 8, 2003 EST (# 8725 of 8728)

America used to be envied as the spoiled arrogant illiterate fortunate child - beneficiary of a rich-by-luck parents occupying the island of prosperity and protected by the oceans from the rest of the World's slam.

Now its is also feared beast of dynosourial proportion lashing accross the Glob with fire and iron.

Such a mix of extream envy and fear from the most of the world should be very alarming for those who care for this nation's future.

almarst2002 - 04:45pm Feb 8, 2003 EST (# 8726 of 8728)

http://www.VoteNoWar.org/

almarst2002 - 04:53pm Feb 8, 2003 EST (# 8727 of 8728)

The president will take us to war with support — often, I admit, equivocal and patronizing in tone — from quite a few members of the East Coast liberal media cabal. The I-Can't-Believe-I'm-a-Hawk Club includes op-ed regulars at this newspaper and The Washington Post, the editors of The New Yorker, The New Republic and Slate, columnists in Time and Newsweek. Many of these wary warmongers are baby-boom liberals whose aversion to the deployment of American power was formed by Vietnam but who had a kind of epiphany along the way — for most of us, in the vicinity of Bosnia. - http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/08/opinion/08KELL.html

rshow55 - 04:59pm Feb 8, 2003 EST (# 8728 of 8728)
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.

Almarst writes:

"You aren't that naive are you? Not many leaders are ready to sucrifice their nations economy, defences and their own well being to stand up against US which spreads around billins of $ and tons of treads in equal proportion."

How much penalty could there be in asking that something as simple as this thread be checked? It seems to me that there would be lots of ways to do it - including some combinations of a number of indirect ways. If two or three nations wanted such a simple thing checked - it is hard for me to imagine that costing much - or really anything.

If it mattered to them. It seems to me that with the stakes now - getting some things checked should matter to a lot of leaders of a lot of nations.

I think there is a great deal of sincere function in the Bush administration - but I'm not at all sure they face up to their motivations nearly often enough - especially when it could possibly be expensive. Though it would be deeply in the interest of the United States to get some things fixed - and I think some hostility to the US is misplaced (not all of it.)

I believe that everybody who cares about the survival of the world should consider carefully the concerns about the military-industrial complex set out in the FAREWELL ADDRESS of President Dwight D. Eisenhower January 17, 1961. http://www.geocities.com/~newgeneration/ikefw.htm

The core things Eisenhower warned against have happened. In many ways it is humanly understandable -- but there is a mess, it is as dangerous as it can possibly be, and we need to acknowledge it, and fix it.

http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md00100s/md969_973.htm

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense