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.

gisterme - 09:04pm Feb 21, 2003 EST (# 9184 of 9200)

rshow55 - 11:07am Feb 21, 2003 EST (#9175 of ...)

http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.J2ssaapZ3Sa.1939295@.f28e622/10701

"...Even you, gisterme - and even GWB - live in a world of other people - and other nations..."

Thanks for pointing that out, Robert.

We all live in the world. Most of the people in the world are good; but, some are evil. When such rise to seats of power and use that power to opress, murder and generally make people's lives miserable, is it the responsible thing to do to just ignore it? I don't see how. When a strong person sees the schoolyard bully pounding on those who can't defend themselves, is it the right theing to do to just ignore it to just watch while he moves on to his next victim? I think not.

When the schoolyard is the world and the bully has biological and chemical weapons and is on the cusp of having nuclear weapons...a bully who is already known to be responsible for over a million murders, is it the responsible thing for the strong to do to just ignore it. Only if they're fools.

If those who are strong will not stand up for the opressed, will not do the responsible thing for the good of all, then their strength will soon be lost. It is well said that "a fool and his money are soon parted". The same is true of a powerful fool. If the good and the strong do not make the necessary effort to prevail over evil, then evil will triumph by default.

If you really want to save some number of lives per day, Robert, then I'd suggest you aim your verbal skills at those who are and have been responsible for taking that number of lives per day. Innocents in Iraq, NK and other places are suffering and dying daily because of their opressors. That will continue and increase until something is done about it. You won't save anybody by trying to confound those who are willing to stop the murder, Robert. You will only help increase it.

gisterme - 09:49pm Feb 21, 2003 EST (# 9185 of 9200)

rshow55 - 11:32am Feb 21, 2003 EST (#9177 of...) http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.J2ssaapZ3Sa.1939295@.f28e622/10703

"...Checking is important - and the reasons Bush thinks the US should be immune to it are not very convincing..."

Oh? What reasons are those Robert? What are the reasons that President Bush thinks the US should be immune to checking? Have you become a mind reader so that you know what the president thinks?

I've certainly never heard Mr. Bush say anything about the US needing to be immune to checking.

I'm thinking again that you might be making stuff up, Robert.

"...The United States has an obligation to explain itself - and pay due attention to the opinions of others - in a world as interdependent as this one..."

Robert, you need to get a better grip on what's happening in the world. It's Saddam Hussein that's in violation of United Nations resolutions because he won't explain himself or listen to others ... not the US. Hadn't you noticed? If you haven't noticed then you're certainly not qalified to be making pronouncements about what is needed to solve the world's problems. If you have noticed, then I can't help but wonder, based on the things you say, what your true motivation is.

Now if there are supposedly honorable nations in the world who want to support the continued regime of a bloody tyrant, any bloody tyrant, then I'd also suggest you focus your self-acclimed dot collecting and connecting prowess on the reasons why that may be. In my view, the honorability of such nations should be checked.

For example, why would France want to see the murderous oppression now ongoing in Iraq continue? France seems to make a claim to moral high ground by wanting a murderous tyrant to remain in power. Don't you notice something a bit contradictory about that stance? France seems to be against a war to stop that murder.

Far more innocent people will die in Iraq and the nations of Saddam's enemies over the next several years than would die in a war now to stop his murderous establishment. I'm sure France knows that as well as the US and UK. Hmmm.

The obvious hypothesis would be that France is somehow profiting and intending to profit from the ongoing bloodletting and torture. Start from there. Identify and connect some dots related to that hypothesis. If you give that a sincere try, I'm sure some lights will come on for you.

lchic - 09:50pm Feb 21, 2003 EST (# 9186 of 9200)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Raises the point .... where has the United Nations 'been' this past half century ???

lchic - 09:57pm Feb 21, 2003 EST (# 9187 of 9200)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Raises the further point ... why where they underfunded and undermined ???

(13 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense