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 - 01:34pm Feb 11, 2003 EST (# 8813 of 8823)

May be by chance, but my understanding of international development since Kosovo has materialized to the large degree with exception of 9-11 attack and, in my view temporary, closeness of a "New Europe" to US.

Unfortunatly, the arrogant, excessive and disproportional US power coupled with ever-increasing appetite for more power would inevitably lead to major breakdown of existing international structures and norms. The resistance in an age of Internet, Global Economy and ever-icreasing destructive power in hands of a single individual could not but result in an overstreach, lost focus, histeria and potentially, a speedy downfall.

Sorry, Robert. I am very pessimistic at that moment.

bbbuck - 02:15pm Feb 11, 2003 EST (# 8814 of 8823)

http://www.netaddiction.com/

To my buddies and uhhh buddette.

rshow55 - 02:26pm Feb 11, 2003 EST (# 8815 of 8823)
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.

It seems to me that some leaders are paying more attention - and if they face up to problems - a LOT might get better. The US isn't independent of the rest of the world - and knows it.

The worst doesn't always happen.

mijj's posting at http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee80aa6/384 tickled me. It is a "stragely honest" ersatz "Bush speech"

http://www.warprecords.com/

rshow55 - 02:41pm Feb 11, 2003 EST (# 8816 of 8823)
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.

NATO Fails to Settle Rift on Iraq; China Seeks More Inspections By RICHARD BERNSTEIN with CRAIG S. SMITH http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/11/international/middleeast/12cnd-iraq.html

BRUSSELS, Feb. 11 - NATO failed today to settle its deep differences over Iraq, the worst rift in the alliance's history, but a spokesman said informal talks would continue through the night and a new meeting would be called for Wednesday.

. . .

"Some analysts believe the United States could emerge more powerful still from the standoff with its allies.

"``If they futilely attempt to stop the United States from doing this and the United States is able to do it anyway, what does that say: that the United States is too powerful for them to stop,'' said Robert Kagan, the Brussels-based author of ``Of Paradise and Power: America and Europe in the New World Order.''

"He argued that France, together with Germany and Russia, might be able to delay American action and say they were ``the only ones with guts enough to tame the U.S.'' But they risked forcing the United States to act outside of NATO and the United Nations, the only frameworks in which constraints can effectively be put on American power.

If the US actually does start acting outside "the only frameworks in which constraints can effectively be put on American power" I suspect that some very effective constraints on American power would come into being rather soon. That might be a good thing for the whole world.

But it is worth noting that, so far, threats aside - the US is trying to fit into the context of international law - and is arguing that it is helping craft an international law that works.

Almarst , I'm concerned, too, but more optimistic than you are - because military power - in the world today - is nothing like as dominant as it looks. If you doubt it - look at all the difficulty that the US has "working its will" in Iraq and N. Korea. There are some important forces at work for rationality, decency, stability, and improvement - including many in the United States government - and among American citizens.

_ _ _ _

Almarst , you've made some very good points on this thread - but I believe gisterme has made some good ones, too.

The US government cares about stability, as well. The US is NOT setting out to "conquer the world" in any of the usual senses. And knows it cannot. That's being made clear at NATO, in the UN, and elsewhere.

(7 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense