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 - 11:13am Feb 16, 2003 EST (# 8985 of 8987)
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 is much too easy for people, including almarst , to discount honest and worthwhile ideals on the part of the US and the UK. Motivations for real nations are, of course, mixed. But by world standards - both the US and the UK have stood for - and made sacrifices for - some very admirable things.

The price of my conviction Sunday February 16, 2003 http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,896706,00.html

Tony Blair tells critics of war that leaving Saddam in power has a 'blood cost'

The actions that leaders of nation states do involve costs in blood and agony for human beings. In a world where a quarter of a million die a day - and where people depend on what human leaders do - the responsibilities are great. By historical standards - people are being more responsible than before - and more sophisticated, too. And there are new opportunities - because human abilities to communicate - and to create wealth -are far more advanced than they've been before.

A major "sticking point" is that the United States is going to have to face up to a question - and answer a question for itself, and for other nations of the world. The question is

"are the interests of the US, and the US military-industrial complex built to win the Cold War, the same?

They aren't identical interests. If that could be sorted out - this would be a wonderfully hopeful time - for the United States and for the rest of the world. By reasonable historical and human standards - the US has some big things it should be resposible for - but a lot to be proud of, as well.

Under conditions where international law is having to be negotiated into being - the Bush and Blair administrations are taking some reasonable positions.

U.S. to Seek Tests to Show That Iraq Resists Disarming By STEVEN R. WEISMAN http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/16/international/europe/16DIPL.html

At the same time, there are good reasons for Americans, and people elsewhere, to be concerned about disproportions between means and ends. And unnecessary carnage, consciously intended or not. The things Eisenhower warned about in his FAREWELL ADDRESS of January 17, 1961 have happened. - http://www.geocities.com/~newgeneration/ikefw.htm that needs to be faced.

One good way to face some key things would be to check the assertions about fact on this board - specifically the technically straightforward facts about missile defense that have been evaded - by institutions that have, most times, considerably less ability to predict and face up to consequences and disporportions than NASA does. When things are complicated, and conflicted - the only hope of good solutions involves finding and facing facts. http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/296

lchic - 12:11pm Feb 16, 2003 EST (# 8986 of 8987)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

""America now appeared to have dumped its commitment to bring Western-style democracy to Iraq. Instead, under pressure from Saudi Arabia and the Arab Gulf states, Washington was preparing to leave Iraq under the control of President Saddam Hussein's Baath Party.

'This would be an unmitigated disaster for the long-term relationship between the US and the Iraqi people,' he said. 'The Iraqi opposition is going to become anti-American the day after liberation. It is a great irony.'

Iraq's democratic opposition parties are meeting this week in Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq to finalise plans for a transitional government. But their vision of a post-Saddam administration is deeply at odds with proposals set out last week by President George Bush's special envoy to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad - and apparently endorsed by the Foreign Office. Under the plan a US military governor would rule post-war Iraq for up to a year.

http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,896778,00.html

(1 following message)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense