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 - 02:03pm Sep 12, 2002 EST (# 4276 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.

President Bush gave a fine speech to the United Nations. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/12/politics/12AP-PTEX.html If all the points and implications of this speech were clearly discussed - so that all the nation states in the UN were clear about what intended meanings were - now and in ways that would be clear in the future - that would be great progress.

Not only points and standards with respect to Iraq, but with respect to the United States and other nations as well.

Not only promises made by Iraq, but promises and statements made over the years by the United States, as well. (For instance, statements made, and agreements signed, about nuclear weapons reductions.)

If these questions were asked and answered, very many of the concerns almarst and lchic have raised on this thread would become much clearer.

The power of the United States (not only Iraq) would be clear - but also clearly limited. And we'd live in a safer world.

We're a long way from that clarity, but the president's speech took steps toward it, if the United States is willing to stand up to questions about American national behavior. Perfection isn't possible and wouldn't be necessary.

Adults need secrets, lies and fictions
To live within their contradictions

Chidren and nations need to tolerate some logical tensions, too. But when consequences matter enough - clarity is important enough to insist on. Not just from Iraq. From ourselves, as well.

If we lied less -- if truth broke out -- peace might break out, too.

At the level of technique - - the sorts of procedures discussed in MD1076-77 rshow55 4/4/02 1:20pm with respect to missile defense might be useful. It describes a pattern of fighting to a finish - a pattern for settling things. Nobody has to be killed or, with honorable conduct, even much embarrassed.

- - - - - - -

If some key things were taken to clarity, there would have to be some changes in policy.

One thing that would clarify is that there are times when interdiction has to be an option. Under clear, carefully justified, limited and stable circumstances.

There are no circumstances where weapons of mass destruction can reasonably be used. We should get rid of them. Not only in the hands of the Iraqis - but in our own hands, as well.

rshow55 - 02:36pm Sep 12, 2002 EST (# 4277 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.

Posted September 5 - http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/332

The Bush administration is right that interdiction has to be an option - and it is a major point. It is a point that I've been arguing, in detail (but also in context) since September 25, 2000 rshow55 4/21/02 3:14pm - . But interdiction has to be a last resort -- and it has to be justified (preferably before the fact, at least after the fact) in credible ways - lest the world get far worse than it is. For stability, interdictions that can be justified , and that make sense in terms of balance, may have to be an option for many or all nation states. The United States can't ask for a right to interdict for itself and long deny this.

(13420 following messages)

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