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 - 08:48pm Mar 3, 2002 EST (#182 of 187)

MD22 rshow55 3/1/02 6:57pm

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.

rshow55 - 09:43pm Mar 3, 2002 EST (#183 of 187)

Important questions raised by almarst in the last few weeks.

almarst-2001 - 02:08pm Feb 19, 2002 EST (#11631 of 11635)

Hi Robert, Lunarchick, and all whom I came to know on this forum.

If anything, the recent events for the last 6 month or so, just reinforced my views on the nature of US policy.

So, my questions remained the same:

Why the US, already having by far the most impressive military force, still spends on a military more then a dosen other largest spenders combined? And asks for more! Much more. Not for the war on terrorism, I assume.

Why the Bush didn't want to sign a strategic nuclear arms reduction aggreement with Putin? And to destroy, rather then conserve, the nuclear warheads?

Why the US opens the legal doors to resume the underground nuclear testings?

Why the US continues to develop chemical and biological wearpons, secretly or under the cover of the thinnest of the legal loophalls?

Why the US rejects the International War Crimes Tribunal, unless it leaves US military out of its jurisdiction? While directly financing (against the UN law) those it helped to establish?

Why the US, while officially condemming the spread of arms, remains the largest arms seller in the World (40% aff all)?

By the way, did you see the pictures of "humanitarian" bombing of Yugoslavia? The Western "civilization" "Humanitarian" action in pictures - http://www.fas.org/irp/imint/kosovo-imint.htm

rshow55 - 09:44pm Mar 3, 2002 EST (#184 of 187)

Important questions raised by almarst in the last few weeks.

almarst-2001 - 08:40pm Feb 20, 2002 EST (#11669 of 11701)

"America needs satisfactory answers"

Yes.

But lets first define the questions.

1. What are the American interests abroad which may affect the interests of other nations. And how vital those interests are respectivly? How those interests are defined, by whom and for whoes benefits?

2. Who are American enemies and why. Is there any realistic options for compromise or this is a zero-sum game?

3. What are their realistic options in harming the American interests short of suicidal attack. What if at all is there a chance for such suicidal attack?

If we exclude the missionic idea of converting all the nations into mini-US-like in all respects (which is not only unrealistic but, in my view, hardly desirable), the unswers should be stright-forward and honest.

In trully democratic and free societies those questions should be raised by a media and debated widely. Supplemented by a honest and sufficient information about culture, traditions, history and the projection of the real life of the average citizens in all affected countries. At least the honest attempt in this direction must be made. The alternative points of every view must be actively seeked and presented for the debate - just like in any honest judicial court. The foreign assessement of the US actions must be actively seeked and honestly presented. The panel(s) of critics acceptable to all involved sides must be invited and encoureged for intellectual debate. All arguments presented as facts must be validated by joint or independent commisions and the media.

Such a process may look quite messy and long but, if successful in preventing the misunderstanding, mistrust and war, could be worth the effort.

rshow55 - 09:45pm Mar 3, 2002 EST (#185 of 187)

Important questions raised by almarst in the last few weeks.

almarst-2001 - 09:08pm Feb 20, 2002 EST (#11672 of 11701)

To my naive suggestions above I can add that as of this moment, the US Government is planning to expand its propaganda and misinformation apparatus even beyong the all-known involvement in the media of the CIA.

Additionally, the US, Britain, Canada and Australia are maintaining the super-secret "carnivor" system of collecting the electronic information around the Glob quite unscrupiously and without any legal supervision.

If establishing the trust is a cornerstone of preventing the conflicts, those acts are hardly helpfull.

Add the unprecedented and disproportional size of US military and its presence all over the Glob, the rejection of most War Crime and military ethics related treaties, rejection of nuclear arms reductions, race to militarise the Space, villingness to use military force anywere anytime with no regard to international laws and principles of civility, the longest list of military aggressions, many extreamly brutal and targeted against civilian populations and infrastructures then any other country since WWII, wide use and promotion of economical sunctions mostly affecting the ordinary civilians as a means to create internal conflicts and replace the regime, while quite openly offering the economic help (effective bribe) as an incentive to topple the regime. there hardly left any country on Earth, the US is not actively involved in supporting the regime against the will of the population or acting to topple the regime regardless of the will of the affected citizens. Wery fiew places on this planet left unmarked by the US military instalations and bases.

This is, in my view, the closest thing to the "big brother" for all other nations one can imagine. Hardly an equal partner for honest discussions and arguments.

(2 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense