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 - 06:39am Feb 11, 2003 EST (# 8802 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.

330 - Psychwarfare, Casablanca . . . and terror http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/352 includes this:

STATEMENT MADE, FINALLY, AT GISTERME'S SUGGESTION-INSISTENCE: It is now technically easy to shoot down every winged aircraft the US or any other nation has, or can expect to build - to detect every submarine - and to sink every surface ship within 500 miles of land - the technology for doing this is basic - and I see neither technical nor tactical countermeasures.

"That's a judgement - a statement about potential. I believe that the world would be safer and more stable if some key countries (say GB, Germany, France, Russia, China, and Japan) set up a cooperative program to design all the necessary equipment to convert this potential to a reality - and put the full designs, including workable manufacturing drawings and specifications, on the internet. Unless I've missed something, everything necessary could be accomplished using equipment that was militarily operational prior to 1970 (manufacturing drawings are available for such equipment), combined with the few new insights in 4533-4547 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.DDr1b0YuYGb.1123875@.f28e622/5726

"Design work, competently done, might cost ten million dollars. Deployment for a country the size of Russia should cost between 2 and ten billion. These are substantial sums, and perhaps I underestimate them, but the probable costs do not seem large in comparison to the US military budget of 350 billion/yr.

"The idea of doing this design work openly and collectively may seem naive - but I believe that it would be both practical and efficient.

That information was discussed further - especially in 334 http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/357 , 339 http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/364 , 363 http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/394 , and 375 http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/407 , with links to this thread.

Within less than an hour after the STATEMENT MADE, FINALLY, AT GISTERME'S SUGGESTION-INSISTENCE was first posted here - the NYT threads went down for a number of days. Perhaps it was a coincidence. But there should have been reason to check it. If that statement is true - it is fraud for the United States to continue to sell much of its military hardware (at enormous prices) to other countries. When it matters, is there anything that the current military-industrial complex feels duty bound to check?

We're talking about a trillion dollar error here - that's been much discussed on this thread. If nations that ought to be concerned with the issue faced up to the things involved and asked for checking - to closure - much good would come.

rshow55 - 06:44am Feb 11, 2003 EST (# 8803 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.

Divisive Diplomacy With Europe http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/11/opinion/11TUE1.html says a "conventionally wise" thing - NATO should agree on something small - and postpone fundamentals until afterwards. That is, after a war that may not have to be fought - that may not be justified at all - actually happens.

The argument for postponement of fundamentals always looks good. But this time, problems should be faced. The corpus of things said to be facts on this thread could be checked.

If it were - a great deal would clarify. In the editorial, there's this

" But this has become a charged debate because it is a proxy for another more fundamental argument - whether our allies should be expected merely to accede to American policy.

That is, an argument about whether there is good reason to believe in the good judgement and good faith of the United States in the particular cases at hand. This is an important argument to engage in - and move toward closure - more important than an accellerated timetable for an invasion of Iraq that may well not be justified.

It is not obvious that "Turkey should get everything it needs" right now.

Here's part of an undelivered speech by Franklin D. Roosevelt, written shortly before his death:

" Today, we are faced with the pre-eminent fact that, if civilization is to survive, we must cultivate the science of human relationships --- the ability of all peoples, of all kinds, to live together and work together in the same world, at peace."

This quote was on the last page of the American Heritage Picture History of World War II , by C.L. Sulzberger and the editors of American Heritage , published in 1966. This much, I believe, is clear. Facts matter as much as they happen to matter - and when key facts are in enough dispute - they should be checked - even if it gets, in somebody's opinion "far too personal." The issues here are personal - we're discussing the honor and judgement of the President of the United States under circumstances where there is much reason to doubt that honor, that judgement - and the honor and judgement of the people for whom he stands.

If we could get some key facts checked - and the implications of them set out beyond a reasonable doubt - by the standards of jury trials - but publicly on the internet - so anyone interested could actually look - we could sort out enough to take the incidence of agony and death from war way down from where it has been. And we could learn enough to make the world a much more prosperous, more pleasant, more decent place.

(8894 following messages)

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