New York Times Forums
The New York Times

Home
Job Market
Real Estate
Automobiles
News
International
National
Washington
Business
Technology
Science
Health
Sports
New York Region
Education
Weather
Obituaries
NYT Front Page
Corrections
Opinion
Editorials/Op-Ed
Readers' Opinions


Features
Arts
Books
Movies
Travel
Dining & Wine
Home & Garden
Fashion & Style
Crossword/Games
Cartoons
Magazine
Week in Review
Multimedia
College
Learning Network
Services
Archive
Classifieds
Book a Trip
Personals
Theater Tickets
Premium Products
NYT Store
NYT Mobile
E-Cards & More
About NYTDigital
Jobs at NYTDigital
Online Media Kit
Our Advertisers
Member_Center
Your Profile
E-Mail Preferences
News Tracker
Premium Account
Site Help
Privacy Policy
Newspaper
Home Delivery
Customer Service
Electronic Edition
Media Kit
Community Affairs
Text Version
TipsGo to Advanced Search
Search Options divide
go to Member Center Log Out
  

 [F] 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.


Earliest Messages Previous Messages Recent Messages Outline (13430 previous messages)

jorian319 - 03:39pm Aug 27, 2003 EST (# 13431 of 13437)

...the US administration believes it can operate outside the rules when it comes to weapons of mass destruction...

"Outside the rules" presumably means "ignoring the dictates of governments (Tasmanian, Australian) other than the US's". Is there any earthly reason the US administration would believe otherwise? Should the US administration be bound by what the Tasmanian minister thinks?

I think the USGOV has a duty to mitigate whatever threat exists from WMD, and the right to do so without regard for the Tasmanian minister's protestations.

The problem, for me, arises when countering this (or any other) perceived threat becomes a profitable endeavor for the government's individuals and departments. It then behooves them to manufacture as much appearance of threat as possible in order to perpetuate support for whatever-it-is they're supposed to be doing about it, and actually doing anything about it becomes a threat to their perpetuity.

mazza9 - 06:12pm Aug 27, 2003 EST (# 13432 of 13437)
"Quae cum ita sunt" Caesar's Gallic Commentaries

Fred: "....snuf said!"

almarst2003 - 07:53pm Aug 27, 2003 EST (# 13433 of 13437)

For the US, the main thing in Iraq is to push through the privatisation of Iraq's oil, to achieve the liberalisation of the Iraqi economy and to get the big US corporations in there. They are not too concerned as to how the country will be run, as long as that sort of economic structure is maintained. - http://www.counterpunch.org/riley08272003.html

almarst2003 - 07:57pm Aug 27, 2003 EST (# 13434 of 13437)

Privatization - In Iraq, Labor Protest is a Crime - http://www.counterpunch.org/bacon08252003.html

almarst2003 - 08:04pm Aug 27, 2003 EST (# 13435 of 13437)

The UN must not let itself be used as a dustbin for failed American adventures. - http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1029259,00.html

More Messages Recent Messages (2 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Your Preferences

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  / Missile Defense