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 - 06:42pm Feb 11, 2003 EST (# 8822 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.

Almarst , it seems to me that if Russia, or other nations - were clear about what they wanted from the United States - in terms that they could explain in public - they might well find their needs satisfied.

Countervailing forces to the United States are coming into being - getting organized - in the NATO countries, among the countries on the Security Council - and in a lot of other ways.

It seems to me that human actions work best according to the following pattern:

" Get scared .... take a good look ..... get organized ..... fix it .... recount so all concerned are "reading from the same page ...... go on to other things."

I made that point on my first appearance on this thread - in far-off days when I thought I might only have to be on the thread for a single day. I was hoping to get a chance to get debriefed (see esp 304) . I thought, in this session - that I was adressing Bill Clinton - and given the background - that wasn't an unreasonable guess.

http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md00100s/md266.htm

http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md00100s/md273.htm

http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md00100s/md280.htm

http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md00100s/md290.htm

http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md00100s/md304.htm

I started that session of Sept 25, 2000 with a suggestion about how, if people did want to nuclear disarmament - they might do it. The key idea was to build on natural fear and distrust - not to try to build on fictions of trust. Casey had aske me to come up with such a suggestion.

Maybe, at long last, people are getting concerned enough to pay attention to some key issues. Enough attention to really take a good look and get organized - to really agree on what it is they have to do - so that solutions become possible.

The United States cares, and cares a lot, about what France, Germany, the voters of UK, Russia, China, and many other nations think. Bush cares - personally, I'm sure - and as a politician, he cares, as well. American business interests care, as well.

The conflicts going on are as big as they are - but not bigger. Disagreement are as big as they are - but not bigger.

As for the "destruction of major after-WWII World's institutions and Laws" - - in many key human terms - those institutions and laws haven't worked so well - in large part because the ideals of the UN, before the Cold War took hold, were vitiated by the Cold War. Now the Cold War is over - the current threats, by Cold War standards, are fairly small - and perhaps we can get organized to build on what has been good, correct the inadequate and the paralyzed, and do much better. The Bush administration isn't necessarily averse to that - so far as I can see. It is averse to disorder . The Bush administration is trying to work within established institutions and laws, and renegotiate in workable ways. The old ways have surely had their limitations. The history of Russia since 1991 illustrates some of the most agonizing of these limitations.

(1 following message)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense