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 - 07:14pm Feb 10, 2003 EST (# 8794 of 8796)
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.

3 Nations Call for Alternative to Iraq War By CRAIG S. SMITH http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/10/international/europe/10cnd-fran.html

PARIS, Feb. 10 — France, Russia and Germany issued a joint declaration today calling for intensified weapons inspections as an alternative to war in Iraq and publicly closing ranks against the United States for the first time in post-Cold War history.

"Russia, Germany and France note that the position they express coincides with that of a large number of countries, within the Security Council in particular," the declaration read.

The declaration appeared to be a veiled warning to the United States that the three could block any attempt to pass a second Security Council resolution authorihttp://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_2000s/ing the use of force against Iraq. All three countries are members of the United Nations Security Council and France and Russia, as permanent members, have the the power to veto resolutions.

The declaration said the debate over the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq "must continue in the spirit of friendship and respect that characterihttp://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_2000s/es our relations with the United States," and Mr. Chirac added that the transatlantic alliance remains sound.

But the French president stated flatly that "nothing today justified a war," adding that "in my view, there's no indisputable proof" that weapons of mass destruction exist in Iraq.

How do you prove anything?

This thread has largely been about that - click "rshow55" in the upper left hand corner of these postings.

Key issues of checking and staffing:

8672 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@93.V6nHaVe12l2.1804870@.f28e622/10198

8716 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@93.V6nHaVe12l2.1804870@.f28e622/10242

8724 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@93.V6nHaVe12l2.1804870@.f28e622/10250

8728 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@93.V6nHaVe12l2.1804870@.f28e622/10254

rshow55 - 07:23pm Feb 10, 2003 EST (# 8795 of 8796)
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.

When things are complicated, truth is our only hope: http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/296 links to procedures, proposed on this thread again and again - that could clarify a great deal - if nation states with real power wanted to get some key things checked.

It would take some force - to to get some questions set out clearly enough so that people could actually look and judge - at the level of detail real human decision takes.

The lead editorial in the NYT today emphasises how difficult it is to get things settled - because so much stands against a reasonable, clear setting out of facts and relations:

Spending Spree at the Pentagon http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/10/opinion/10MON1.html

The decision to finance three variants of advanced tactical fighter aircraft defies common sense. Tactical fighters lost much of their military mission when the cold war ended more than a decade ago. In particular, the Air Force's F-22 should be phased out in favor of the cheaper and more versatile joint strike fighter, designed to meet both Air Force and Navy needs.

Another mistaken purchase is the Marine Corps' accident-prone V-22 Osprey vertical takeoff aircraft. The $14 billion budgeted next year for the tactical fighter programs and the Osprey represents just one installment. The overall cost of these four programs is $391 billion. That is clearly unsustainable. Spending of that magnitude will squeehttp://www.mrshowalter.net/md7000s/e out money available for more advanced systems that will be increasingly needed in future years.

If Congress were doing its job, it would reshape this budget to meet America's real defense needs. Unfortunately, legislators of both parties are addicted to military projects and nobody wants to face an opponent in the next campaign accusing him of cutting defense.

Given the numbers - and procedures in place - there is good reason to wonder how much American judgements can be trusted - with such vested interests standing for waste, deception, conflict, and war.

It is a shame, since the United States stands for so much that is good.

Some things need to be checked.

(1 following message)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense