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.

gisterme - 05:29pm Oct 14, 2002 EST (# 4869 of 4892)

commondata 10/14/02 3:36pm

"The concept of balance of power is predicated on mutual deterrence..."

I'd wager that's just about what Neville Chamberlain was thinking when he declared "peace in our time".

"...Such increased emphasis upon accident-prone quick launch options would be virtually certain if the United States deploys a national missile defense in this decade..."

Naa. Why do folks so want to continue the Cold War? It's over! That was then, this is now. Can you give a single reason why the United States would attack Russia?...or a single reason why Russia would attack the United States? I'm listening.

Ahem...Russia is not the threat. The Cold War is over. The peace dividend is and has been...peace. Expensive? Yes; but in my view the cost was worth avoiding a nuclear war. I thank God that none of the currently nuclear-armed states are ruled by madmen.

http://go.msn.com/CM/10000/default.asp?target=http://www.msnbc.com/modules/counters/msn_story.asp%3Fu%3D/msn/820190.asp

"...Why not have a moratorium on the deployment of strategic missiles - defensive and offensive?..."

Why not indeed? Do you suppose Saddam would agree to a moritorum on strategic missiles? Of course he would. Didn't Hitler agree to peace as well? Was his agreement with Mr. Chamberlain worth the paper it was written on? Nope.

If we don't learn from history, it will surely repeat itself;...but, as looking back clearly shows, each such repetition of unlearned lessons is more costly in human terms than the one before.

So far as I know, the US, Russia, China, the UK, France and Israel are not deploying any new strategic missiles. They are about the business of reducing those numbers of weapons. Would you disagree? India and Pakistan are the only states who have demonstrated nuclear bomb capability who may be attempting to make their bombs deliverable by missile.

Iraq, Iran and North Korea are trying as hard as they can to join that club. Iraq at least is ruled by a madman.

"...I live in London, Gisterme, and my opinion doesn't differ..."

Few people who have been nuked have further opinions. Once that happens, it would seem a little too late to change one's mind.

Once again I'll say, the time to close the gate is before the horses are out of the barn.

gisterme - 05:36pm Oct 14, 2002 EST (# 4870 of 4892)

lchic 10/11/02 11:57am

...The 'By Gosh' in the post above doesn't sit with Mazza's style ... more Gisterme..."

That weren't gisterme, darlin'! :-)

commondata - 05:56pm Oct 14, 2002 EST (# 4871 of 4892)

So that's why you've got to have a shield - to protect yourself from the serious threat of nuclear-tipped ICBM attack from Iraq? You ought to be ashamed of yourself. The country has been decimated.

Denis Halliday, then Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations, said

"I had been instructed to implement a policy that satisfies the definition of genocide: a deliberate policy that effectively killed well over a million individuals, children and adults ... What is clear is that the Security Council is now out of control, for its actions here undermine its own Charter, and the Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva Convention. History will slaughter those responsible."

On December 15, 1998 the International Atomic Energy Agency reported that it had eliminated Iraq's nuclear weapons programme 'efficiently and effectively'.

Scott Ritter, for five years a senior UNSCOM weapons inspector said

"By 1998, the chemical weapons infrastructure had been completely dismantled or destroyed by UNSCOM or Iraq in compliance with our mandate. The biological weapons programme was gone, all the major facilities eliminated. The nuclear weapons programme was completely eliminated. The long-range ballistic missile programme was completely eliminated. If I had to quantify Iraq's threat, I would say it's zero"

p.o.d. - 06:53pm Oct 14, 2002 EST (# 4872 of 4892)
Prince of Darkness, Yes it's Me, I'm back

Testing, testing, DOD psi research ...

gisterme - 06:56pm Oct 14, 2002 EST (# 4873 of 4892)

commondata 10/14/02 5:56pm

..."By 1998, the chemical weapons infrastructure had been completely dismantled or destroyed by UNSCOM or Iraq in compliance with our mandate. The biological weapons programme was gone, all the major facilities eliminated. The nuclear weapons programme was completely eliminated. The long-range ballistic missile programme was completely eliminated. If I had to quantify Iraq's threat, I would say it's zero"...

And the prime minister of Great Britian said "peace in our time!"

If Iraq had complied with UN resolutions, why did they kick the UN inspectors, including Scott Ritter, out of the country? Do you suppose Saddam was afraid US or British inspectors would spy out some fancy new technology from their baby-milk factories?

(19 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense