New York Times Readers Opinions
The New York Times
Home
Job Market
Real Estate
Automobiles
News
International
National
Washington
Campaigns
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
New York Today
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 (6473 previous messages)

almarst2002 - 01:43pm Dec 11, 2002 EST (# 6474 of 6482)

Satellites to challenge Pentagon spin - http://www.msnbc.com/news/845811.asp?0cv=CB10&cp1=1

In my view, a very important development.

mazza9 - 01:47pm Dec 11, 2002 EST (# 6475 of 6482)
"Quae cum ita sunt" Caesar's Gallic Commentaries

Almarst:

As parents we try to prevent our children from making our mistakes in hope that their future will be "better". The denial of Scuds to Yemen is paternalistic, I'll admit. Can they be trusted, at this point in their history, to behave in a mature manner, (the US get's to define mature!). I don't think so.

The history of non-proliferation compliance is spotty at best but that's nothing new. The Washington Naval Conference of 1922 was designed to reduce the occurrence of future wars. That era's WMD, aka the battleship, was "limited" to many and denied to a few, (the "losers of WWI). Germany was one state that was not to have a Dreadnought!!! So they built the pocket battleship which met the letter of the law. They also built the Tirpitz and Bismarck and well... so much for "treaties to control human behavior" Kinda like North Korea's agreement with President Clinton to eschew a nuclear program which they failed to comply with!.

In today's world if we are to establish peace and tranquility then someone has to take on the parenting role. The UN has failed in this respect. It ignores the human rights violations that are occurring in Africa and yet finds Israel guilty of racism! The Iraq issue is a no brainer and yet a 17th resolution was needed to communicate to Iraq it's non compliance with the first 16 resolutions regarding their invasion of a soverign nation were not heeded to.

Time to spank the bad kids and establish peace and decorum in the world.

rshow55 - 01:48pm Dec 11, 2002 EST (# 6476 of 6482) Delete Message
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.

almarst2002 12/11/02 1:43pm . . . conditions for a stable peace are falling into place - pretty fast.

Information handling is crucial - and a lot of progress is being made.

Now if there could be reasonable controls, if not at the level of controlling the "right to lie" -- at least at the level of a "right to checking" when stakes are high enough - - we could sort a lot of things out.

rshow55 - 01:54pm Dec 11, 2002 EST (# 6477 of 6482) Delete Message
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.

The UN may be in the process of succeeding.

The position set out in mazza9 12/11/02 1:47pm can't last - but may have its uses, in forcing the nations in the world to make international law work.

There are plenty of circumstances in the world where "there has to be a fight."

Most of the time, most of the fighting can be done - well by almost all reasonable standards - at the level of ideas - if checking facts is done with enough effort - and things are taken to closure.

For instance, if radical islam decides to define itself as in a "fight to the death" with modernity - once that is clear - the situation can be resolved - and will be - and the body counts can be quite low.

Modernity has too much to offer, and radical islam has too little, for there to be any chance for radical islam to win, if it is defined in such terms.

almarst2002 - 02:04pm Dec 11, 2002 EST (# 6478 of 6482)

mazza9 12/11/02 1:47pm

Paternalistic?

You have to take some pretty heavy obligations first to be called Padre. Including one that value the life of your child at least as much as you value your own.

Future on, if you read some of the links I provided, you could learn that US was the MAJOR source of proliferation of military technology including WMD around the Glob, directly to the areas of the conflict and including such countries like Iraq.

Sorry, but your argument does not seem to fly. Except may be into your own face.

More Messages Recent Messages (4 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Your Preferences

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





Home | Back to Readers' Opinions Back to Top


Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company | Privacy Policy | Contact Us