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.

mazza9 - 01:05am Mar 16, 2003 EST (# 10045 of 10056)
"Quae cum ita sunt" Caesar's Gallic Commentaries

Gisterme:

I hear your frustration. The ignoraemous' that post here don't know/accept facts. The League of Nations was Woodrow Wilson's concept of a better world where US inspired Democracy would prevent situations like those which had created WWI.

So FDR and Churchill decide to try again and the foundation for the United Nations arises out of the Bretton Wood agreement. The United Nations was the United States trying, once again, to bring order and justice out of chaos. Everything went swimmingly from 1947 until 1947. The Soviet Union and the Cold War would mitigate against the achievement of order and justice.

BTW, for you who aren't so knowlegeable when it comes to history, why don't you look up what UN resolution number One was all about and why it was tabled never to be addressed!

If I could wave my magic wand all dictators would be transported to Alpha Centauri and Superman would rule the world!

gisterme - 01:14am Mar 16, 2003 EST (# 10046 of 10056)

rshow55 - 12:02am Mar 16, 2003 EST (# 10036 of ...) http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.x1zsatUD52D.2134464@.f28e622/11581

"The functions the UN is supposed to serve are so important, and the sentiment for it so strong and so widely held - that the UN isn't going to go away - it will get stronger..."

"Supposed" being the key word in that statement. Unfortunatly, the UN seems unable to accomplish anything it is "supposed" to accomplish. That's why it's at risk of having it's irrelevancy exposed.

"...A time may come where US basing rights overseas may go away - and the welcome for US military ships in ports - or close to shorelines - may go away. Overflight rights may go away..."

I look forward to the day when those things will no longer be necessary. That will mean that there is peace in the world.

"...Contracts and informal agreements favorable to the US may go away..."

I presume you mean in the marketplace, Robert. If it happens that US firms cannot compete then that's just the way it goes. The only reason that would happen is if US innovation and industriousness go away. That that will happen any time soon doesn't seem likely to me.

"...Wasn't it just last week that the Bush administration went on TV and predicted that a Security Council vote would go its way? The US can misjudge its own popularity - and the willingness of other actors to be pressured, as well..."

I think that prediction was made because President Bush was sincerely hoping that the UN wouldn't want to render itself irrelevant. The president's responsibility to protect the American people has nothing to do with popularity. That only matters in Hollywood. Even though the UN voted 14-1 in favor of the new resolution, France's desenting vote (defacto veto) would cause the resolution not to be adapted. So much for the value of popularity. Ironically, France, among all the permanent Security Council members is the only one who hasn't done anything (other than be a victim) to earn its veto power.

So far as "actors" being pressured, well, the US is obviously not the only one trying to do that. It all gets back to that payola thing. I belive that susceptability to that is the fundamental and fatal flaw in the UN as an organization.

One thing's for sure. Whatever is going to happen in Iraq is going to happen no matter what Chirac says. The other thing that's sure is that France will lose billions in product sales to US consumers. That won't be because the US government has made some proclamation. That will be because American consumers (who are the government) will not support with their wallets what they perceive to be back-stabbing by Chirac. I don't expect that will change so long as Chirac remains in office.

I have little doubt that Chirac will try to jump onto the bandwagon once he sees that his initiative to protect Saddam's regime has failed. That will probably be when it becomes obvious beyond his ability to maintain denial that Iraq has WMD. Chirac will then say "now we're convinced, let us help". Personally, I hope the president tells him to go suck a rug. The promise of excellent cuisine is not what wins wars.

almarst2003 - 01:22am Mar 16, 2003 EST (# 10047 of 10056)

gisterme - "France will lose billions in product sales to US consumers"

I wonder what would happen if China says "NO" at SC. Would it mean US consumers would rather walk naked on the streets? And what about Germany? Are you suggesting to drop all those fine German cars on a side of a road and jump into a Ford's "Crown Victorias"?:)

almarst2003 - 01:24am Mar 16, 2003 EST (# 10048 of 10056)

"The promise of excellent cuisine is not what wins wars."

I thought it was a main goal to win wars:)

(8 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense