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 (8822 previous messages)

rshow55 - 06:50pm Feb 11, 2003 EST (# 8823 of 8825) 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.

People are talking. Leaders of major nations are talking - and staffs are interacting. And considering options. That's hopeful.

Something I'm sure people are considering is a situation where the United States is not deferred to as far as trust is concerned.

If this were to happen (and the Bush administration has to think of such possibilities) - a lot might follow. The things that followed might not be bad, from the perspective of the rest of the world, or from the perspective of the citizens of the United States.

If other nations ceased to defer to the guidance and judgement of the United States - and did their own work - the following things might be real options:

NATO might cease to function as it now exists - and the EU might organize itself to handle its own security interests. It could surely do so - much of the key US military hardware is close to being obsolete now - and could easily become so. Key weapons systems are vulnerable to advances in guidance, and are inherently vulnerable to EMP weapons that are technically easy to build now, or soon. It isn't a bit clear that the US can maintain a technological lead on military technology that actually matters. Or a lead large enough to amount to much. If the United States no longer had bases in the European NATO countries - that would provide real independence to those countries - and require them to think about their defense more carefully, as well.

The UN might find a way to function without domination by the United States. That wouldn't be hard to arrange, or to fund, if the will to do so came into being. A "UN-1" could be organized, given 1/100th of the US defense budget - by simply reconstituting the current UN without the United States. Such a "UN-1" would have the same size budget the UN has now. If the rest of the world cares desperately about having an organization that fulfills its particular ideals of international law ( and if the rest of the world could define those ideals ) - the rest of the world might plausibly be willing to come up with 3 billion dollars/ year to fund that organization. Such an organization would have a great deal of power to restrain "unreasonable" action from the United States - a nation that depends on millions of international contracts to function.

The US might be asked to leave many of its bases, by many countries. It seems clear, for example - that the Korean crisis could be well resolved - with real disarmament on the peninsula - if departure of US troops from Korea was part of the bargain, and if a workable bargain was carefully negotiated by responsible nations - including South Korea, China, Russia, and perhaps Japan. If these other nations care enough about working around the power of the United States - they might do the work that this would take.

The United States, after more than a decade of not being able to deal with Saddam Hussein, is saying "enough is enough." Maybe other nations are right that "there are a few more months to go before enough is enough." The fight over this question, substantial as it is, - is still only as big as it is.

The United States may be screwing some things up - and spending more money than it should - and otherwise impure.

Other nations are impure, too.

The US is pushing for solutions - in a world that could use some. And, it seems to me that, often enough - the US is doing some listening.

almarst2002 - 10:03pm Feb 11, 2003 EST (# 8824 of 8825)

I totally agree that continuation of sunctions against Iraq is both useless and immorally genocidal. It is a shame the World allowed the US to maintain them for so long. The current crisis may end those and become a very positive development.

However, very fiew people around the World and enough even in US trully believe the Saddam or WMD are the reason for US planned war. We are convinced its about OIL and strategic influence in the ME.

Interestingly, the economic sunctions against Cuba are still taboo in US political establishment. The same mantra of "regime change" is still repeated for more then 30 years. Just how many people around the World would believe the Cuba is worst the Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or China in all aspects of humanity, civility and even democracy?

Additionally, I repeatedly pointed out to the deep internal conflits of US policies. Abroad and even more importantly, at home. The role of a sole self-appointed World-Wide policeman, judge and executor will bring to the end not only the international institutions and orders (however imperfect), but treaten and severely damage the American Democratic institutions at home. If the ORDER is the main goal, then the DICTATORSHIP is the best answer. Looking at the evolution of the American Patriot Act I & II and the fact that so called "war against terror" is an open-ended one, the lost seems to be ever INCREASING and PERMANENT. As an example, the NYC already stopped the anti-war demonstration scheduled for Feb 15 on the ground of ... treat of terrorism. The American Citizens can already spend their lives behind bars for merely being acused by a government as terrorists based on a secret evidence.

One does not have to be a historian to recognise the familiar road.

More Messages Recent Messages (1 following message)

 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