New York Times on the Web Forums Resource Area for Forum Hosts and Moderators

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 - 11:14am Aug 12, 2002 EST (# 3667 of 17697)
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.

rshow55 8/12/02 10:45am includes the phrase - "Americans need to be WORTHY of the GOOD THINGS people associate with this flag - - not just wave it. . . " along with an image.

Ann Coulter's new book does include a passage - that she's had to defend on television - where she asserts that "liberals hate the flag." I love the United States, and our flag.

Reasons that I've had to believe that Ann Coulter has posted on this thread extensively, as "kangdawei" are set out between MD3640 rshow55 8/11/02 1:54pm and MD3643 rshow55 8/11/02 2:03pm . Perhaps I'm incorrect - but if so, I've drawn my conclusion for clear reasons - stated so that others can judge for themselves.

Probabilities link. For a year of very extensive postings, gisterme knew that I'd been referring to (him-her), on this thread and on the Guardian, as a Bush administration stand-in - - and gisterme's postings played that role admirably. Almarst knew that I'd been referring to (him-her) as this thread's "Putin stand in" and almarst's postings seemed to me to play that role admirably.

Perhaps I'm guilty of jumping to some conclusions. Playing a "game" - - one may forget that it is a game. But it seems to me I stated the case reasonably in MD1999 rshow55 5/4/02 10:39am , whether I've made some "connections that aren't there" or not. MD3639 rshow55 8/11/02 1:29pm

The Odds of That by LISA BELKIN http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/11/magazine/11COINCIDENCE.html

The process by which human beings "connect the dots" -- form patterns in their minds -- is the same process - - whether the particular relationship "seen" happens to be real or coincidental. You have to check.

Our culture, these days - is in a lot of serious and unnecessary trouble because checking has become so difficult.

wrcooper - 12:02pm Aug 12, 2002 EST (# 3668 of 17697)

Lou:

If I am not mistaken, what you are saying is that a workable and reliable defense against ICBMs would be desirable. There is a non-negligible threat of an ICBM attack from several hostile states, and, if it were possible to neutralize such a threat, we should do so.

I agree in principle that a BMD system would be worthwhile. However, I have a number of reservations about developing one. I'm not referring to the chance that taxpayers will be buying a pig in a poke. I agree with critics who say that the technology isn't there yet. The military is overrating the quality of the system as it currently stands. I nevertheless agree with you that current failures don't necessarily forecast future failures. A workable system is possible, given enough time, money and breatkthroughs.

My reservations concern the geopolitical ramifications of such a system. I'm afraid it would be fundamentally destabilizing. Instead of promoting disarmament and denuclearization of international armed forces, it could stimulate the efforts of hostile powers to speed up or enhance their ICBM technology to ensure its continued effectiveness as a deterrent against the United States. If the U.S. developed a workable BMD system, that could produce the opposite result from what we're looking for, that is, increased safety and peace of mind. The world could become a more dangerous place than it is already.

What we should be doing is taking the initiative to spearhead international disarmament. We could set a powerful moral example if we made the first concessions. We have more than enough warheads in stock to take such a risk, and we can prudently maintain the capability to build new warheads in short order. Let's put the Chinese and North Koreans on the spot in the international court of opinion by showing the world that we are more interested in a stable long-term peace than they are.

Meanwhile, we should be strengthening our intelligence and interdiction capabilities to make sure we know of any developing threats and are able to handle them if and when they arise.

(14029 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Resource Area for Forum Hosts and Moderators Missile Defense