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.

lchic - 08:44am Feb 11, 2003 EST (# 8808 of 8811)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

"" The investment represents almost 10% of Russian foreign exchange reserves, and around 1.5% of the country's gross domestic product. BP's move is expected to herald similar investments in Russia's improved economy under Vladimir Putin's leadership.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,3604,893427,00.html

"This is a major strategic step into a country with massive oil and gas reserves and immense potential for future growth," John Browne, BP's chief executive, said.

rshow55 - 08:52am Feb 11, 2003 EST (# 8809 of 8811)
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.

Fallout From Iraq Rift: NATO May Feel a Strain By STEVEN R. WEISMAN http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/11/international/middleeast/11ASSE.html

WASHINGTON, Feb. 10 — The disagreement that split the United States and three European allies today was provoked by the issue of disarming Iraq. But the rift now threatens to undermine the unity of NATO itself at a time of widespread questions about the alliance's future after the cold war.

It was an open question today how serious or permanent the potential breach at NATO will turn out to be. Despite the current tensions, Europe and the United States remain closely tied by culture, politics and economics.

Why does this mean that the leaders of the other NATO nations must, as a practical matter - take their orders - without questioning facts and judgement, from Genral James L. Jones?

8648 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.B3SnalYv2ol.52385@.f28e622/10174

http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md00100s/md978_981.htm

rshow55 - 08:57am Feb 11, 2003 EST (# 8810 of 8811)
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.

Reversals in U.S.-South Korea Links, and Some Jagged Fault Lines By HOWARD W. FRENCH http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/11/international/asia/11KORE.html

At a private Washington dinner for the South Korean visitors last week, which was intended as a frank, off-the-record exchange, several American participants said mouths dropped open when a senior South Korean envoy said that if it had to choose, the incoming government would prefer that North Korea had nuclear weapons to seeing it collapse. - - - (and American said) . "I sense major trouble ahead in the relationship. The impression I got is that for Roh and his generation, the ultimate goal is to reunite their country and get us off the peninsula."

Well why not?

How can Koreans look at THE KOREAN WAR ARMISTICE AGREEMENT http://news.findlaw.com/nytimes/docs/korea/kwarmagr072753.html of July 27, 1953, with the expectations built into it - and remembering the negotiating skills of the participants, and the context, and not feel sympathy for the North Korean people - and a desire to help them? Flaws, crazinesses, and all? That agreement is a moving human document, considered in the context in which it happened. The US had killed more than 2 million N. Korean civilians in dam and fire bombings at the time this armistice was negotiated - and the agreement includes this and much else that the North Koreans must have interpreted as an intention to settle the peace. :

Article IV

Recommendations to the Governments Concerned on Both Sides

60. In order to insure the peaceful settlement of the Korean question, the military Commanders of both sides hereby recommend to the governments of the countries concerned on both sides that, within three (3) months after the Armistice Agreement is signed and becomes effective, a political conference of a higher level of both sides be held by representatives appointed respectively to settle through negotiation the questions of the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Korea, the peaceful settlement of the Korean question, etc.

If the US says it had no moral obligations to make peace with the N. Koreans - Koreans may reasonably disagree. I know I disagree. The N. Koreans were sacrificed (after all, they were only enemies) to our larger containment policies.

If the world starts facing up to the past - and solving problems - rather than taking the "diplomatic" way of always postponing - a great deal could be solved - at relatively tiny cost - and the world could be a great deal safer and better. If this were done every reasonable security need of the United States would be well served.

(1 following message)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense