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 - 10:24pm Mar 15, 2003 EST (# 10014 of 10017)
Can we do a better job of finding truth? YES. Click "rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have done and worked for on this thread.

I was concerned when I read gisterme's 10007 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.v0LPasDF5Qs.2110254@.f28e622/11552 - - in the same way I'd be if someone told me that 2 + 2 = 5 , and I was expected to go along. I did some reading - of Berle and some others, and stayed concerned. In fact, Krugman's George W. Queeg piece came vividly to mind. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/14/opinion/14KRUG.html

I'll sleep on it, before writing more about my feelings about gisterme's responsibility writing as he did in 10007. I have to assume from 10007 that gisterme probably assumes that Saddam is dead - as I think most people will who look at it.

For now will post links from this thread commenting on the possibility that Saddam is dead.

Maybe Saddam's dead: 9896 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.v0LPasDF5Qs.2110254@.f28e622/11438

"He's dead" as an explanation for strange conduct: 9900-1 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.v0LPasDF5Qs.2110254@.f28e622/11442

A definition including a suggestion that this question should check a rush to war - and a way to check: 9902-3 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.v0LPasDF5Qs.2110254@.f28e622/11446

Almarst denying Saddam's being living or dead matters - list of issues: 9905 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.v0LPasDF5Qs.2110254@.f28e622/11449

I say that if Saddam is dead - new possibilities open up: 9926 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.v0LPasDF5Qs.2110254@.f28e622/11470

It seems to me that, if the United Nations decision making means anything - the matter needs to be checked: 9928 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.v0LPasDF5Qs.2110254@.f28e622/11472

Test question: if Saddam is dead - would leaders know what to do? 9933 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.v0LPasDF5Qs.2110254@.f28e622/11477

But if the decision is already made - nothing matters: 9937 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.v0LPasDF5Qs.2110254@.f28e622/11482

The matter should be checked - and if Saddam is probably dead - the old challenge "Saddam" gave to debate Bush should be accepted , because legitimacy determines how people fight. 9942-3 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.v0LPasDF5Qs.2110254@.f28e622/11487

9945 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.v0LPasDF5Qs.2110254@.f28e622/11490

9948-9 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.v0LPasDF5Qs.2110254@.f28e622/11493

If Iraq is a country run by "the Wizard of Oz" - that makes a huge military and diplomatic difference: 9950 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.v0LPasDF5Qs.2110254@.f28e622/11495

It is easy to check the matter, and the stakes are huge: 9951-52 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.v0LPasDF5Qs.2110254@.f28e622/11496

9955-6 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.v0LPasDF5Qs.2110254@.f28e622/11500

Almarst - Saddam's survival isn't everything: 9964 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.v0LPasDF5Qs.2110254@.f28e622/11509

"The Saddam Hussein show" 9987 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.v0LPasDF5Qs.2110254@.f28e622/11532

Iraq invitation to Blix and ElBaradei should involve Saddam personally: 9995 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.v0LPasDF5Qs.2110254@.f28e622/11540

Gisterme: Saddam's being living or dead doesn't matter: 10007 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.v0LPasDF5Qs.2110254@.f28e622/11552

Does anything matter? Has anything but a locked-down plan to go to war mattered for a long time? Has all the US talk at the UN, and the talk about "disarmament" going on - been nothing but a sham? Has it been "regime change, and nothing but" all along?

almarst2003 - 10:31pm Mar 15, 2003 EST (# 10015 of 10017)

Robert,

I think the "regime change" is a goal. But for the completely different from an official one reason.

(2 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense