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 - 09:02am Feb 19, 2002 EST (#11625 of 11635)

People of good will have a major interest in seeing that political and military decisions get made that are based on facts rather than fictions, and based on motivations that can stand the light of day.

Saddam is a menace because he has weapons, and is crazy. If Saddam were respectful of facts, if he did not exercise a "right to lie" --- Iraq would not be a menace -- and both Iraq and the world would be better off.

North Korea is a menace because it has so many weapons, and has long been making crazy judgements. If the North Korean government was respectful of facts, if it did not exercise a "right to lie" ---North Korea would not be a menace -- and both North Korea and the world would be better off.

The same can be said of Iran, and of some other nations.

The same standards need to be applied to the United States -- and it is in the interest of the United States itself, and the whole world, to see that they are.

Other nations can reasonably object when the United States acts as if it does not care about their interests. And may object if the US government acts as if it does not care about their opinion. But perhaps the most solid reasons of all to object to decisions is that they are crazy , distorted, and based on lies and motivations that cannot stand the light of day.

In the face of "American political technology" -- bad decisions can be made, and sustained for long times. There are good reasons to ask that facts , including technical facts, get established, and that actions taken correspond to them.

lchic - 11:40am Feb 19, 2002 EST (#11626 of 11635)

V I S I O N
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/docs99/somesm-s.jpg
Showalter - there was the question of VISION for the USA, the following posts looked at philosophy and vision ...

rshow55 2/17/02 8:08pm

rshow55 2/17/02 8:10pm

rshow55 2/17/02 8:14pm

rshow55 2/17/02 8:18pm

I'm sure of this. Any decent answer to the question " 'What is America's Vision for the next few decades?" would have to be an answer that fit values and ideals that Americans in Eisenhower's time, and ours, hold dear, and are proud of. We have to find those answers. I think we can. Back tomorrow. (showalter)

rshow55 - 12:33pm Feb 19, 2002 EST (#11627 of 11635)

MD11601 rshow55 2/17/02 8:12pm

Much has happened since President Dwight D. Eisehhower, who was Roosevelt's Supreme Commander in Europe, gave his FAREWELL ADDRESS . http://www.geocities.com/~newgeneration/ikefw.htm on the 17th of January, 1961. But the ideals set out in that adress are still shared by most Americans, and still respected throughout the world.

Much has changed. Changes that Eisenhower was arguing for with all his strenth did not occur. The military industrial complex was not brought under the control of the political process in the way Eisenhower asked.

Much has changed, and not all for the better. Since that speech, the Bay of Pigs fiasco happened. The Kennedy assasination happened. Vietnam happened. In some ways the '60's fragmented the very idea of "American ideals" in ways that still reverberate. Since that speech, Watergate happened. Much else has happened. And the military-industrial complex Eisenhower warned against so forcefully has grown into the structure of America for forty more years.

Eisenhower spoke in the middle of the Cold War. Eisenhower didn't discuss what the "end game" might be, at the end of that struggle. We need to think about it, both in terms of what has happened, and what needs to happen in the future.

The good, old ideals, liberal and conservative at once, that Eisenhower valued and spoke of in his Farewell Adress are valued still by Americans, and valued very widely all over the world. But there are things about America that many criticise - including many of our friends -- that I believe would have apalled Eisenhower as well.

We need to reinforce and focus the good things about America, and our American traditions and ideals -- and to do so we need to become clear about, and reform, some "necessary evils," put into place during the Cold War, that are necessary no longer, but are now cancers, and blots on the hopes of America and the hopes of the world. It is both right and practical that we do this.

(8 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense