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 - 12:16pm Feb 15, 2003 EST (# 8921 of 8926)
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.

One can sympathize with Blair's point of view - and still regard it as incomplete. Especially as regards the notion of attacking Iraq with a clear conscience, because of terrible things Saddam has done. One need not dispute that Saddam has done terrible things - but in the Cold War, over the same times, and times not very much removed from Saddam's terrible actions - the United States did some terrible things, as well

63 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.7qDzaqLb3sf.795861@.f28e622/76

64 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.7qDzaqLb3sf.795861@.f28e622/78

65 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.7qDzaqLb3sf.795861@.f28e622/79

66 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.7qDzaqLb3sf.795861@.f28e622/81

67 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.7qDzaqLb3sf.795861@.f28e622/82

68 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.7qDzaqLb3sf.795861@.f28e622/83

69 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.7qDzaqLb3sf.795861@.f28e622/84

70 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.7qDzaqLb3sf.795861@.f28e622/85

We need to make peace. We need to do better in the future than we've done in the past. We can.

It is important that Iraq disarm - and there's significant progress towards that - in the ways that matter for international safety. More can, should, and will be done. I believe that every sensible security need of the US can, should, and will be served. But if there is war with Iraq - it needs to be based on a reasonable interpretation of the UN mandate on weapons of mass destruction. And if, on that basis, war is not justified - it should not happen.

rshow55 - 12:18pm Feb 15, 2003 EST (# 8922 of 8926)
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.

President Bush and Prime Minister Blair are taking important - useful action to convert the United Nations into an institution that can really exert the powers necessary for increased peace and stability. The threat of force is essential - but if that threat works - and in some essential ways, it seems to be working - it can only be counterproductive to use the force in violation of the explicit and implicit promises made.

Sometimes, it seems to me that this thread may be being useful. I've often referred to Berle's Laws of Power -

8304-8305 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.7qDzaqLb3sf.795861@.f28e622/9830

8588 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.7qDzaqLb3sf.795861@.f28e622/10114

8643 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.7qDzaqLb3sf.795861@.f28e622/10169

8746 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.7qDzaqLb3sf.795861@.f28e622/10272

Berle's laws of power are taken from his book, Power , published in 1969. It includes an excellent chapter III - Philosophies of International Power - which I hope many diplomats read. I may type out some of it, and print it here, though it is long. It says some very sensible, basic things about the UN, the Security Council - and what a workable international law would take. Berle's chapter III begins as follows:

" There cannot be institutions of world government without world consensus on their underlying philosopy. Though there are reasons justifying hope that such philosophy and institutions will emerge - indeed are dimly visable on the horizon even now - it would be cruelly unrealistic to overestimate the institutions now existing, still more so to suggest that an idea system commands general assent on which world government could be based. "

That was written in 1969 - and Casey made sure I read it. I believe that if people keep working - keep "connecting the dots" - and apply some simple notions about checking and

disciplined beauty: 5438-40 rshow55 11/1/02 12:00pm http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.7qDzaqLb3sf.795861@.f28e622/6810

we may be able to come up with the relatively few, relatively simple ideas a good enough system of world government would take. It seems to me that a lot of the work needed to do that has gone on in the last few years -and is going on now.

We don't have to agree on all that much. Enough to stop killing unnecessarily - to enforce reasonable standards of conduct that meet minimal human needs - and to cooperate when cooperation makes sense.

We could stay as diverse as we are - and go right on hating each other, as always, and still figure out how to do that well.

(4 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense