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 (8766 previous messages)

rshow55 - 08:56pm Feb 9, 2003 EST (# 8767 of 8782) Delete Message
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.

Inspectors See 'Change of Heart'; U.S. Says Progress Is Not Enough By BRIAN KNOWLTON International Herald Tribune http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/09/international/middleeast/09CND-INSP.html

Pope to Send Envoy to Iraq By FRANK BRUNI http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/09/international/middleeast/09cnd-vati.html

"The difficulties on the world horizon at the start of this new millennium lead us to believe that only an act from on high can make us hope in a future that is less bleak," he said.

France and Germany Weigh Plan to Send More Inspectors to Iraq By JOSEPH FITCHETT International Herald Tribune http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/09/international/09cnd-french.html

MUNICH, Feb. 9 — France and Germany are weighing a joint initiative to the United Nations that would send additional weapons inspectors and perhaps even international military observers to Iraq, German officials said today. . . . . .

The French-German idea, if accepted, could delay almost indefinitely any military action led by the United States.

. . . .

"The Russian defense minister, Sergei Ivanov, said today that Russia would undoubtedly agree with the French-German idea "if it is supported by the Security Council." Mr. Ivanov also said Moscow was ready to make its own specialists on weapons of mass destruction available to the United Nations inspection teams in Iraq.

_ _ _ _ _

If the objective is to solve problems - according to patterns that are something other than US hegemony - these approaches make sense.

Who, in the entire world, has an obligation to surrender to US hegemony? So far as I know, arguments that other countries have such an obligation have not been clearly set out by the United States.

The Bush administration is referring to WWII. This situation is very different from WWII. A minor power, that is a relatively minor threat - is being asked to conform to agreements to give up weapons of mass destruction- and is making responses that are substantial, but incomplete. That's not the same as the appeasement of Hitler - and the fact that the Bush administration pushes the "analogy" astounds me.

We have a problem with Iraq that needs to be solved - and many countries are working to solve it, within reasonable standards. With an excellent chance of doing so.

There is also a problem with North Korea. It ought to be solved.

Again, the question needs to be raised. Is the issue US hegemony - is it "our order or no order at all" - - or is a committment to a equitable and workable international law?

almarst2002 - 09:01pm Feb 9, 2003 EST (# 8768 of 8782)

"Is the issue US hegemony - is it "our order or no order at all" - - or is a committment to a equitable and workable international law?"

Could you guess what most people of the World would say?

almarst2002 - 09:06pm Feb 9, 2003 EST (# 8769 of 8782)

"equitable and workable international law?"

Imperically, the law tends to accomodate the prevealing power. That's why the needed checks and ballances of power require some counterballance to US hegemony.

Even the good King is bad enough.

almarst2002 - 09:55pm Feb 9, 2003 EST (# 8770 of 8782)

How come all those wonderfull innovations and technological progress are able to turn around behind our backs and bite us in the a*s (sometimes literally) - http://www.iht.com/articles/86170.html

Children playing on outdoor wood playground sets face an increased risk of bladder and lung cancer from arsenic exposure, scientists at the Consumer Products Safety Commission say. . In a federal report issued Friday, the commission recommends that children wash their hands after playing on wooden playground sets and also not eat in the vicinity of the wood. . The report is the first acknowledgment by the U.S. government that there are health risks associated with pesticide-treated wood that has been in wide use in residential settings such as playgrounds and decks since the 1970s.

More Messages Recent Messages (12 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