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 - 03:14pm Feb 12, 2003 EST (# 8832 of 8833)
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.

The Bush administration is pushing for solutions to major world problems - and I think it is a great and good thing that they do so. They are suggesting only solutions that they, as power holders, can suggest - from where they are - with the ideas they have.

If other power holders actually use power that they have - and ask for accomodations that fit the responsibilities that they have - good solutions - including some "obvious" ones - should be possible.

No one can ask an American military officer, or President - to voluntarily surrender large amounts of power, either material power or organizational power. In a more ideal world - it might be a reasonable thing to hope for - but not in this one.

Other power holders are going to have to ask for things that they can actually ask for.

For example - other nations can ask the United States to leave bases - when it cannot reasonably be expected that the United States will do so voluntarily - even under conditions where it is in the broader economic and security interest of the United States to do so. If the South Koreans are to solve their problem, and the world's problem, with the North Koreans in a way that involves US troops leaving South Korea - they will have to ask for those troops to leave. If the EU countries wish to have the United States leave its position of leadership in NATO - or leave NATO - they will have to ask for that. They cannot reasonably ask officers of the US government to volunteer to do so - even if doing so would serve broader US interests.

In an ideal world - the terror threat would be very small (we're not far from that now) - weapons of mass destruction will be far less of an issue than they are now - and painful, tragic vestiges of the Cold War would be resolved cleanly, safely, and reasonably justly. These goals may be achievable in the real world - and I believe that they are. But for these things to happen - there are actions that the US cannot be expected to initiate that may be needed. Other nations - other power holders - will have to ask for these actions - or insist on these actions - on the basis of power that these other nations and power holders actually have.

When things are complicated, truth is our only hope: http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/296

Truth is a substantial hope. But even the objective truth isn't enough - we must ask the people responsible for action to do things that they can actually do.

If leaders and staffs of NATO countries, and countries on the Security Council face their problems -and make decisions that they will be proud to explain to the people they care about, and have to care about - every reasonable need of US security, and word security - can be improved step by step.

One useful step - easy for staffs - would be to look at gisterme's postings - and see what they have to show about the logic of situations that might be improved. Those links (more than 1000) can be accessed via out in http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/407 . Power is personal - and we have in these postings a great deal of information about how G.W. Bush, or someone quite close to him - actually thinks.

rshow55 - 03:16pm Feb 12, 2003 EST (# 8833 of 8833)
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.

8802 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.oaNzayXL3KL.319039@.f28e622/10328 cites Spending Spree at the Pentagon http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/10/opinion/10MON1.html and includes this:

"A question arises whether there is anything in the way of logic or evidence that will get "members of the team" in the military-industrial complex (including NASA) to admit to anything that might significantly change program priorities - or devalue programs. The questions make a big difference when the issue is money and status. Similar big differences - plus additional differences of life and death, when the issue is war.

For the real human power-holders involved - the answer may be no - and may have to be no - unless ways can be found to force these power holders to face facts - in ways consistent with legitimacy within their fields of responsibility.

If power holders - including especially power holders from other nation states - asked that some key issues be faced - it could happen easily. Unless power from an external source is applied - such things may never happen - regardless of what broader public interests may be.

In discussion on Missile Defense so far, I don't think I've made any significant mistakes at all - except for one quickly corrected - but without force brought to bear - not a single point has carried coercively. For gisterme , nonsense suffices. Gisterme may, in his turn, have been misled by military officers and contractors who could concede nothing - for essential reasons of their power.

For us to do better than that - on missile defense and other issues - including much larger issues - ways have to be found to bring some force to bear. The Bush administration, faced with legitimate force asking for right answers - might respond very well.

It is surely not Bush's personal fault that the US military-industrial complex has been growing - with but little control - for fifty years.

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense