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?

Read Debates, a new Web-only feature culled from Readers' Opinions, published every Thursday.

rshow55 - 07:11am Feb 19, 2002 EST (#11620 of 11624)

lchic, that's a "good joke" -- but the behavior of the United States, under Bush, is no joke. The threats from terrorism, from hatred in the world, are real.

They are especially dangerous because the United States stands, far too often, for lies, for deceptions, for elaborate evasions of fundamentals, rather than for clear facts that can be seen by all. September 11 gave the Bush administration an enormous amount of good will, and deference, by almost the whole world. We've showed that, against the Taliban, our military forces are effective indeed. But we've also showed how important the questions being raised before September 11 actually were. It is amazing how fast the United States is dissipating its position of moral leadership, or leadership based on rational argument, all over the world. Questions of America's "leadership," and role in the world are being asked, with more and more seriousness, all over the world. What is the technical credibilty of the United States, on which it based diplomatic actions (for example, on a missile shield that has been so divisive.) In what sense does the Bush administration act "in good faith?"

These pieces have not been "superseded" by September 11 -- in many ways, the questions they raise have been reinforced, and the context they establish is worth remembering.

- Noblesse Oblige by THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/31/opinion/31FRIE.html

- Soul Brother by THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/29/opinion/29FRIE.html

- Nuclear Arms Still Keep the Peace by ROBERT S. McNAMARA and THOMAS GRAHAM Jr. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/15/opinion/15MCNA.html

- Nuclear Testing and National Honor by RICHARD BUTLER http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/13/opinion/13BUTL.html

Missile defense work exists in a human and organizational context. The widespread expression of views like the following is condition what "trust of the United States" can reasonably mean.

- FLYING INTO TURBULENCE by Peter Martin http://www.intellnet.org/news/articles/peter.martin.flying.into.turbulence.html

Issues of competence, credibility, and honor, that are essential to the military posture of the United States, are at stake here. The whole world has reason to care about these things, and increasingly, the whole world knows it.

And enormous amount hinges on establishing technical facts - - in a situation where "political technology" in America has, too often, and for too long, made facts secondary or tertiary to decision making.

But lies are harder to maintain than they used to be, and if some key facts were established (if enough countries wanted key facts established) the distortions that are making the world far less safe than it could be could be sorted out, step by step.

rshow55 - 07:52am Feb 19, 2002 EST (#11621 of 11624)

The "political technology" that sustains the "missile defense" boondoggle, and much else that has grown cancerous about the US military-industrial complex since the "end" of the cold war, is powerful, and understanding how powerful it is, and how it works, is important so that it can be countered. It is important that facts be established, and decisions based on them. When the public is informed and paying attention, this happens. But the nightmare irrationality of much of US foreign policy, and the missile defense boondoggle, is based on other "logic."

That logic was very well illustrated in

Bush 2000 Adviser Offered To Use Clout to Help Enron By Joe Stephens Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, February 17, 2002

"Just before the last presidential election, Bush campaign adviser Ralph Reed offered to help Enron Corp. deregulate the electricity industry by working his "good friends" in Washington and by mobilizing religious leaders and pro-family groups . . . http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22380-2002Feb16.html

(3 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense