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 - 07:13pm Sep 23, 2002 EST (# 4492 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.

When I came on this thread, in Sept 25, 2000 rshow55 4/21/02 3:14pm , I was terribly concerned about nuclear dangers - and felt, for reasons that still seem sensible in retrospect - http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@247.xGHYaq2NAKx.2@.ee79f4e/1556 Here are some postings from that time:

rshowalt - 05:23am Oct 4, 2000 EDT (#376

At the Responsible Security Organization lunch in Boston, prior to the presidential debate, there was some very plain language for the candidates, delivered by people as informed as people can be http://www.gsinstitute.org/rsp/press/10_3.html#top

(There was no response from the candidates, who did not take questions.)

lunarchick - 02:20am Oct 5, 2000 EDT (#377 of 396)

From the link :

" The current hair-trigger alert deployment of nuclear weapons directly threatens voters’ personal security while unprecedented opportunities for deep cuts in nuclear arsenals with Russia could provide more safety. Despite their impact on all Americans, the burning nuclear issues facing America and the next president have not been adequately addressed by the candidates. Although some vague proposals on missile defense have been mentioned, neither campaign has articulated its position on the contradiction between the formally stated U.S. policy of relying on nuclear weapons for the foreseeable future and the U.S.’s legal commitments – reiterated as recently as May 19 2000 at the United Nations – to work for the global elimination of nuclear arms."

Interesting that a country such as America with a reputation for legal action after minor infringements .... isn't into pre-emptive claims!

joneseytimes - 04:18am Oct 5, 2000 EDT (#378

hair-trigger

what does this mean?

rshowalt - 03:32pm Oct 5, 2000 EDT (#379

First, look at what is there, ready to go off, on each side, to blow up the world. Here's a television treatment of the case, that assumes much MORE stabilty than I believe is really justified.

The following is a transcript of a CBS 60 Minutes II segment entitled "The Missiliers." Produced by George Crile, it contains an extensive interview between Dan Rather and General Eugene Habiger (Ret.) , former Commander-in-chief of all U.S. nuclear forces. http://www.gsinstitute.org/projects/missiliers.html

Toward the end of the 2nd show in this series, there's this.

Habiger: ... We have reached the point where the senior military generals responsible for nuclear forces are advocating, more vocally, more vehemently, than our politicians, to get down to lower and lower weapons. Think about that.

Dan: I have thought about that. And the irony is extreme.

Habiger: It’s a dilemma. I know of no other situation in the history of our country where we face this kind of dilemma.

Studio Out: That dilemma may well get worse. At a time when trust has disappeared, the missiles on both sides continue to operate on full combat alert.

Here is a text adaptation of CNN's Special Report, REHEARSING DOOMSDAY ...which aired Sunday, October 15 at 10 p.m. EDT. http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/democracy/nuclear/stories/nukes/index.html

(13205 following messages)

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