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 - 01:18pm Feb 28, 2002 EST (#11920 of 11928)

There is no solution to these problems unless representatives of nation states are willing, when the facts and balances demand it, to acknowlege unpleasant truths, and apologize.

Even if you forget the morality of the situation -as a matter of logic this is true.

Unless this is done, discourse ceases, and facts essential to reasonable action can't be faced and dealt with.

Boondoggles like "missile defense" are no substitute. For stability, people who live and interact together have to be "reading off the same page." Whether they happen to like each other or not.

manjumicha2001 - 02:52pm Feb 28, 2002 EST (#11921 of 11928)

Ok, sooooo?

All your postins are saying what? Please in two sentences this time?

Btw, don't you think NK has completely different case altogether from Iran and Iraq, notwithstanding the simplified political speech for US public (i.e. dumbed-down) consumtption?

rshow55 - 03:16pm Feb 28, 2002 EST (#11922 of 11928)

Yes, N. Korea is a different case.

Let me get to work on your "two sentences."

rshow55 - 04:40pm Feb 28, 2002 EST (#11923 of 11928)

Background:

. MD11896 rshow55 2/27/02 5:40pm summarized some facts and relations, as I understand them, about the technical problems with missile defense. I say that current programs aren't workable, and are not worth pursuing.

. MD11912 manjumicha2001 2/28/02 11:09am did not concede the points, but did not dispute them, and raised very practical questions. Suppose MD won't work. But suppose also that the risks from N. Korea, Iraq, and Iran are as bad as anyone has ever suggested - - what could be done? manjumicha2001 2/28/02 2:52pm asks for an answer in two sentences.

Two long sentences:

If the United States could, and would, explain its national interest -- distinct from the interests of its military-industrial complex, and explain how its interests fit in the interconnected world we live in -- and do it honestly, and in ways that other nations could check, it could satisfy every reasonable security need it has, without unreasonable or unacceptably unpopular uses of force.

The rest of the world, collectively, and in detail, would try hard to accomodate US needs, if it understood them, and could reasonably believe and respect them.

For the separate, and distinctly different cases of Iran, Iraq, and North Korea, there would be different sentences - - but the two long sentences above seem to me to be most important.

kate_nyt - 05:03pm Feb 28, 2002 EST (#11924 of 11928)
Senior Community Producer, NYTimes.com

Remember: This forum will be restarted late tonight/early tomorrow morning. The best way to find the new link will be by navigating through this page.

manjumicha2001 - 05:46pm Feb 28, 2002 EST (#11925 of 11928)

Ok, rshow

Thanks ! It seems you are advocating some kind of negotiated settlement with NK by which they would satisfy US security needs by, at minimum, stopping the export of their missle and WM assets and in return US would normalize the relationship with NK and try to bring them into the world economic system. But what if the US security needs are determined (through the US internal politics) to include total removal of NK's ICBM and WM capacities (which NK will, due to its own historical experience with US and its internal politics, never accept). Then what? especially after 9/11, if it determined that the continued stalemate with NK is no longer sustainable due to suspected exports of WM or missile capability by NK.

Unless there is a reasonably strong US political interest groups that will work to reduce the scope of US strategic goals with respect to NK's capabilities (as US accepts Israel's WM capability, for example), I am not sure hwo practical your otherwise admirable methods would work?

(3 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense