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 - 06:53pm Dec 11, 2002 EST (# 6509 of 6517)
"Quae cum ita sunt" Caesar's Gallic Commentaries

Cooper:

It's been reported that the US has released the freighter for it to complete its delivery. Why do you suppose the missiles were disguised and hidden? Why did the US, allied with Spain, divulge that it has the capability to identify and track missile sales by North Korea. Why do you suppose we want this particular intelligence capability divulged?

As for the Bush strategic retaliatory statement, I think it is appropriate that the world, and especially the Islamic world, should understand that an attack on the US with dirty bombs, chemical weapons or biologicals will not be tolerated. I don't want my children nuc'ed, fried, or infected! Anyone who thinks that this type attack is a proper method for redressing supposed wrongs had better have a quick exit strategy. If they remain on this planet I will personally hunt them down and do them with my Old Timer pocket knife! They'll come to realize their guilt a la the prisoner of Kafka's "Penal Colony"

commondata - 07:30pm Dec 11, 2002 EST (# 6510 of 6517)

rshow55 12/11/02 5:23pm - Thanks for the comprehensive annotation.

And discussions about the justifications of militarism have sharpened considerably.

The willingness of the US administration to kill and maim again in Iraq is based on sharp justifications such as "Saddam gased 5000 Kurds". Yet successive administrations have been responsible for over a million deaths in Iraq during the last decade. Bush tells us over and over again that Iraq poses a threat, or is likely to pose a threat, or that Saddam is linked with terrorism. We know we're being conned and we know that not long ago they backed Saddam in his war against a feared Islamic revolution in Iran; and they didn't have a problem with his gas back then. There are no sharp justifications in the positions of the US and UK - only half-truths, non-truths, oil, money and guns. The one thing George Bush and his government are not doing, is pursuing facts to closure in public. The 12,000 page dossier on American and others arms shipments to Iraq is currently being edited behind closed Whitehouse doors, if you remember?

But the reasons for inequality may be getting clearer.

The reasons for inequality have always been clear. The board room bozos who think they're worth more in an hour than some of their workers earn in a lifetime are walking examples. And they're our leaders.

(7 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense