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 - 05:19pm Mar 29, 2002 EST (#945 of 960)

European Leaders Are Alarmed By Rising Turmoil in Mideast By WARREN HOGE http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/29/international/29CND-REAX.html is an interesting piece. But I wondered about the almost abject reliance on the American Bush administration that was expressed there:

"A French foreign ministry spokesman, François Rivasseau . . . , called on Washington to step in more forcefully than it has. "We continue to plead for the Americans to commit themselves further," he said. "It is they who have the most means to reason with the opposing parties."

"Igor Ivanov, Russia's foreign minister, expressed "extreme concern" at today's events . . . . . . He said that Russia was engaged in "active consultations" with the United States and Europe over ways to control the violence in the Mideast. Urgent international action was needed, he said, "to halt this crisis, which threatens not only regional stability but could also spill over beyond the region."

. . . .

"Jack Straw, the British foreign secretary, made no mention of Mr. Arafat or Mr. Sharon in issuing a statement saying: "The situation is extremely critical for the millions of people who live in Israel and the Occupied Territories. But never has there been a greater need for restraint to be shown on both sides. It can only be through negotiation that there will ever be a peaceful future for the citizens of Israel, for the Palestinians and for everyone in the region."

"In Berlin, Joschka Fischer, the German foreign minister, condemned "barbarous acts of terrorism" against Israeli civilians and urged both sides to return to U.S.-brokered talks.

The Bush administration has made it clear that it does not want to intervene, to "risk it's capital" (such as that political capital has become) by acting.

If European and Russian leaders are so sincerely concerned, why can't THEY go in, negotiate, and attempt to work out a solution - - perhaps on the basis of http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,675784,00.html ?

Perhaps, as Agha and Malley suggest - - "A solution is possible now." Is the United States, led as it is now led, committed as it is now committed, really so indispensible?

It seems to me that Putin, especially, might find more leverage than he suspected, if he set out to suggest a package deal. The very same deal might be more acceptable to the parties if suggested by Putin rather than Bush -- if Putin, and Europeans who can well afford it, were prepared to supply some peacekeeping troops.

The United States has gotten away with a great deal, on missile defense and many other issues, because the rest of the world has, so often, by default, relied on American leadership and personnel. With so many nations so dissatisfied with American leadership, perhaps they should take more initiative themselves.

almarst-2001 - 06:00pm Mar 29, 2002 EST (#946 of 960)

President Dwight D. Eisenhower " I like to believe that people in the long run are going to do more to promote peace than are governments. Indeed, I think that people want peace so much that one of these days governments had better get out of their way and let them have it."

The Western "democraties'" answer: ZERO casualties among its forces using overhelming high-tech equipment and high altitude bombing, the notions of HUMANITARIAN BOMBING and COLATERAL DAMAGE and A SEA of highly classified "FACTS" for the wide media distribution.

Using those tools and "patriotic" mass media gives the US President almost 90% approval rate for the war on carte-blanshe. Pretty impressive.

almarst-2001 - 06:08pm Mar 29, 2002 EST (#947 of 960)

Robert,

Am I right in my feeling of your obscession with Bushes?

While I consider the policies of both immoral, I can't find any difference, at least morally, with this of Clinton. In fact, I consider the Clinton much more criminal since his actions couldn't be justified at all. The ugly indeed.

almarst-2001 - 06:10pm Mar 29, 2002 EST (#948 of 960)

Rumsfeld - "Even if the detainees were acquitted before a military tribunal, America would continue to hold them, he said." - http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20020328/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/afghan_us_military_997&printer=1

almarst-2001 - 06:25pm Mar 29, 2002 EST (#949 of 960)

http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=181

"As Dick Cheney tours the Middle East in search of support for an American offensive against the Iraqi regime, Yellowtimes.org has learned through multiple independent sources that the Pentagon has already begun planning and building new bases in the region.

The U.S. Constitution specifically gives Congress, not the executive, power to declare war, and the War Powers Act gives Congress the responsibility of preventing the United States from stealthy or gradual slides into conflict.

While Congress has given an ambiguous "green light" to the president in his offensive against Al-Qaeda, no such vote or consultation has been held in reference to Iraq.

Wou much would you bet on a Congress to stop the "patriotic" Prtesident?;)

almarst-2001 - 06:28pm Mar 29, 2002 EST (#950 of 960)

Pentagon: Military Is Ready for More - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31902-2002Mar28.html

Much more... "And to help me the God";)

(10 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense