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?

gisterme - 04:35am Nov 7, 2001 EST (#10284 of 10657)

gisterme 11/7/01 4:32am continued:

Zep wrote: "...You are clearly not aware that OBL when Saddam went first into Kuwait went to King Fahad and said he and his followers would repel Saddam should he enter the neural zone between Kuwait and Saudi…..."

I didn't know that :-) ; but talk is cheap. Do you think for a moment that OBL and all his "vast" army of untrained mountain-fighters could have defeated Saddam in the Saudi sand? Was it 5000 tanks that Saddam had? A million half-million man army, many with combat experience? A powerful air force? Yep.

i..."The King turned him down and went running to the west..."

Gee. I wonder why. Ever consider that the king might have just been being realistic about who could get the job done.

"...This meant US soldiers posted on the land of the two holy places?..."

So what? Are you suggesting that OBL would rather have Saddam as master of the "land of the two holy places" as to have US troops protecting the present masters (and the land) from Saddam? If so you've made my point about OBL and Saddam being bedfellows of convenience.

"...That’s one of the reasons why OBL states the House of Saud and Saddam should fall for allowing that desecration..."

As I said, the snake is clever about saying and doing what serves his interests. Better not to underestimate. OBL wants to be the boss, you know.

"...Now

The ex King of Afghanistan has for the last 16 years since the death of his cousin wanted to return to Afghanistan and reclaim a throne and rule, indeed he tried to do a deal with Gorbachov and also Yeltsin and that is well documented..."

Consider that the man is really elderly. He knows he'll never reign again. Might not have felt that way sixteen years ago. I can only go by what I've heard recently via public media, Led. It's reported there that the man says he wants to go back home (I presume to die) but not to reign. I think the king just hopes along with others that he can be useful in resolving inter-tribal problems so as to to help establish a stable government of Afghans that fairly represents all the Afghan people. That's what I've heard.

(continued...)

gisterme - 04:46am Nov 7, 2001 EST (#10285 of 10657)

gisterme 11/7/01 4:35am coninued:

Zep wrote: "...gisterme - (#10270 )

"...You state “He didn't have much trouble firing missiles into Israel during the Gulf War” these were aged scuds that were inaccurate and have a limited range indeed his scuds could not reach the Mediterranean..."

Yeah, dut he didn't have much trouble firing them into Israel and Saudi Arabia, now did he? And they were accurate enough to hit cities.

"...You say “He still has many of those same missiles plus what ever new stuff he's been able to develope or acquire.”..."

You don't believe that Saddam is buying missile and nuclear technology from China? You don't believe he has his own development program? I do. It's the potential for "new stuff" that troubles me.

"...You can not develop technology or buy missiles with no cash..."

That's right. If Saddam would feed his starving subjects he wouldn't have the cash to buy this stuff...and there wouldn't likely be an ongoing embargo of Iraq. But he continues to spend that food money on weapons and particularly WMD development. Developing friendly little things like anthrax...and ballistic missiles...

"...moreover 99% percent of the scuds were destroyed,..."

Not so. It's not at all clear that even a single Iraqi mobile scud was discovered or destroyed by the intensive search-and-destroy effort that took place during the Gulf War. There's no evidence that any at all were destroyed.

"...even those that were not,..."

(that's all the mobile scuds that weren't fired)...

"...were then old and would now be lucky to get off the ground..."

That's what you suppose. Remember, it's better not to underestimate.

"...You say, “Culling Hitler didn't create a thousand more like him”. Firstly the German Government would not agree; given the sums they have to spend each year stifling fascism in Germany..."

That's a silly arguement! Ahhh, how like Germany is today when compared to how it was when Hilter was finished with it in 1945! What a feeble analogy you've made. If even one or two "Hitlers" had been spawned there might not be anybody alive on earth now. I'm amazed that you can be serious in comparing the punks that are around now to the devil himself. None of these wannabes have the "gift" that the Fuhrer did for creating mass delusion.

"...Moreover we did not cull Hitler; he did [suicide] so, himself..."

Right...and the 20,000,000 or so that died in WWII did so for their pleasure? Do you think they fought and died or were simply slaughtered in Poland, Belgium, Denmark, France, Britian, Russia and other places just because they liked Hitler so much? Give me a break, Led. You've managed to achieve another trivial distinction.

"...One could not win hearts and minds by committing suicide you stand no chance of becoming a martyr, by being a coward and taking ones own life as Hitler did..."

Bin Laden's no different. He might think he'll become a martyr if killed, and if so, I hope he gets his wish. That's because he'll never be anything but a mass murderer...so far, about like Hitler in 1937. As far as spawning OBL clones goes, it's only the ones who have 400 million dollar personal fortunes combined with megalomania who will be dangerous. That's a pretty severe filter. :-)

"...As you say, “We'll just have to agree to disagree about some things”..."

(372 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense