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?

jonathanbaker - 11:56pm Dec 11, 2001 EST (#10356 of 10657)
"Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live." Oscar Wilde

lchic 12/11/01 10:41pm

China would look for 'other' markets ..

Where, exactly? Russia? Africa? South America? India? South Korea?

To put it on the end of a stick: if the NYC and Washington D.C. were vaporized the United States immediately retreats into an fascist-fortress by necessity, and whatever country is associated with that attack will be immediately destroyed. Most likely several hundred million will perish within days. The temperment (over the top rage) of the body-politic in America will demand this, and it will be realized without regret. At that point the entire world is in retreat.

Markets are simply not created at will. Just ask Wall Street. Only the European collective-economy can compare with the U.S., and the Chinese are already saturating the European market to the hilt, and that market will not increase merely with the demise of the U.S.

If the U.S. is devastated then the world declines into a Dark Ages for a limited time with no guarantees for the outcome. In the current game, only the U.S. can afford to extinguish entire civilizations with impunity, but not without ghastly ramifications.

Only death-cult Islamic psychos seriously and actively scheme for the annihilation of the West.

lchic - 08:11am Dec 12, 2001 EST (#10357 of 10657)

Selling to the rich developed world may be a first choice, but, if this isn't available then to grow markets in developing countries is possible.

How did America get rich?

If all the foreign funds were 'pulled' out of the US markets ... what would US then look like.

If China were to develop good working alliances with the emergent nations it would be to the mutal advantage of both.

Why is China seen as the aggressor on this board. The reality is they have lived within their wall - the HAN see themselves as tops in China and the push has been for the HAN to be dominant within the borders.

The Chinese elite will have investments on the mainland, and in Hong Kong. The HK and Tiawan relationships with the mainland have been alliances.

The challenges for China lay within - to raise the standards of the people - and to more nearly meet the standards of the outside world.

The victors in economic battles are those who develop the people via knowlege skills - rather than those who waste too many national resources on the machinery of warfare.

armel7 - 12:50pm Dec 12, 2001 EST (#10358 of 10657)
Science/Health Forums Host

News:India tests new missile.

logician3 -- I've deleted a few of your posts which consisted merely of insulting the president. These forums aim to feature a level of dicsussion substantially above third-grade jabs.

Your host,
Michael Scott Armel

wordspayy - 03:11pm Dec 12, 2001 EST (#10359 of 10657)

Hussein isn’t nuts.

In an episode of Seinfeld the character of Kramer confronts Jerry with the possibility that the girl he is seeing runs a phonesex hotline. Seinfeld finds the accusations utterly preposterous and tells Kramer he is crazy to say such a thing Kramer retorts, “Is it! Or is it so right on the mark that I just blew your whole mind!” Such is the reaction I have when I attempt to convey to individuals that the despot of Iraq, Saddam Hussein is actually very much a rational individual. This runs counter to the very image we as Americans have created of “Butcher of Baghdad”.

Mr. Hussein may be many things. He is a ruthless thug but one cannot call him irrational in the practice of foreign policy. The assertion that Hussein is not irrational can be found in the simplicity of how he is examined from the perspective of what is known as game theory. Saddam doesn’t want to get blown up. He does not want to have the very thing he is trying to defend or at times enhance, completely and without question destroyed. In doing so, Saddam Hussein is adhering to a set of unwritten standards that all nations characterized as rational follow. Hussein will not initiate policy that will result in the total destruction of the state. He will not initiate policy that allows for zero maneuverability in trying to maintain the survival of both his regime and the nation state. He may weigh risks and miscalculate response, but his behavior reflects a leadership that adheres to the limits of being rational. For example, if we examine Hussein actions during the Gulf War you will find that limits of conduct with the American led alliance had been drawn early on. If Hussein was “nuts” or irrational he would have not adhered to any limits in his decision making process. In fact the leadership of Iraq acted in a highly rational mode when conducting campaigns aimed at trying to break apart the fragile alliance created under George Bush. Iraq launched SCUD missiles at Israel. He had the ability to tip them with chemical and biological weapons. He did not. Why? Because Saddam knew that if he were the first to utilize weapons of mass destruction on another nation state, he would not be the last. He understood that use of such weapons would without question unleash a like response from Britain, America, France or Israel. That message was conveyed to Hussein in clear-cut terms early on through public posturing by the United States and its allies. America and its allies treated Iraq as a rational actor and conveyed the rules of game. America may talk rhetoric to its citizenship regarding the rationality of Iraq but when it comes to policy initiatives Iraq is treated as a rational nation state by the American leadership. If Hussein was not playing by rational standards he would have ignored the set rules and Unleashed WMD not caring about the consequences it had on his own states survival. . Instead he unleashed a limited conventional attack with SCUD missiles loaded with conventional weapons with the sole intent to shatter the coalition created against him. He gambled that Israel would strike back and that the alliance would crumble because Arab states would revoke support once Israel was attacking a fellow Muslim state. Today, with Americas long anticipated withdrawal from SALT I and the ABM protocol now official the United States has in effect paved the way for future encounters with nations like Iraq to not have such crystal clear consequences. America has shifted its deterrence strategy away from the majority of this world, the rational actor to that of the minority the irrational actor. In doing this, America actually decreases its overall security rather then enhances it. Such retooling of the worldwide deterrence model requires all other rational states to follow suit and defend themselves. Not following suit subjects worldwide leaderships with charges of not protecting the most important thing,

(298 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense