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.

commondata - 07:02am Dec 13, 2002 EST (# 6572 of 6575)

rshow55 12/12/02 8:21pm - the idea that I have a "singular desire for war" seems strange to me.

I think that to identify too closely with the Bush administration's public pronouncements may be an indication of a "singular desire for war".

You'll remember that the French and Russians had fears that the original text of resolution 1441 might contain ambiguities constituting a "hidden trigger" which would allow Mr. Bush to claim UN backing for a war on Iraq without the UN security council meeting again to say so. After the wrangling, if the US or any other state wants to report an instance of Iraqi non-compliance, and thus to reconvene the security council, it will have to do so "in accordance with paragraph 11 and 12", not "11 or 12". That means a consultation must be held with the weapons inspectors. Given the behavior of the Americans in 1998 (when they withdrew the inspectors and left ordinary Iraqis with the continuing ravages of sanctions) that seems like a reasonable safeguard.

Unfortunately it's a safeguard with only symbolic value because as the Whitehouse reminds us "The president has all the authority he needs, should he decide to strike Iraq, thanks to the congressional resolution".

Of course, if Iraq has got weapons of mass destruction, the UN will authorise "regime change" and likely have my blessing. But I say to you, with great respect, that the inevitable anger and indignation unleashed in the event of unilateral US and UK action would be both understandable and ultimately helpful. And that a diplomatic fight against continual unilateral aggression would be a fight worth having.

lunarchick - 09:28am Dec 13, 2002 EST (# 6573 of 6575)

What a weird weird structure it is that passes for US government.

The same for this party -- nudge nudge, wink wink .... no benchmarking ?

~~~~~~~~~~~~

"" Make no mistake: This is not about Venezuela alone. The larger issue of elected leaders who go wrong has come up in Pakistan, Peru and the Philippines, just to stick with the P's.

(Again - no benchmarking!)

rshow55 - 10:57am Dec 13, 2002 EST (# 6574 of 6575)
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.

I don't necessarily agree with everything in commondata 12/13/02 7:02am , though I respect what Commondata says.

I do agree here - and very strongly, with Commondata:

Of course, if Iraq has got weapons of mass destruction, the UN will authorise "regime change" and likely have my blessing. But I say to you, with great respect, that the inevitable anger and indignation unleashed in the event of unilateral US and UK action would be both understandable and ultimately helpful. And that a diplomatic fight against continual unilateral aggression would be a fight worth having.

There are fights worth having. To the extent decisions can be gotten entirely at the level of ideas, communication, and human agreement - the fights -- which remain real fights - may be resolved gracefully and well, and at costs I suspect almarst , Commondata , and gisterme would often agree were worthwhile costs.

If irreconcilable differences occur - sometimes fights that rend flesh happen too. I've never said I was happy about that.

Where such flesh-rending fights are looming these question needs to be asked in detail:

. Does this particular fight -- under these particular circumstances - - have to become a matter where people are killed, injured, and lives blighted?

If people are clear about their answers to such questions - we'd have better fights (maybe more of them - but smaller ones) at much lower human costs than we're now incurring - in my opinion.

Ugly as some things are, it seems to me that some necessary conditions for good outcomes - not present just last year - are coming into being. People are doing a lot more communicating - and talking straighter - than they were before.

If people can actually match the complexity of their solutions to the real complexity of the problems they propose to "solve" - - and can actually account for pros and cons, costs, payoffs, risks, and times - in terms that can be understood -- the world would be a much, much safer, more prosperous place - and it might not take so very long. rshow55 11/25/02 2:41pm

Again and again, lunarchick has pointed out the need for benchmarking. She's right to do so. Matching against standards - again and again and again - is needed - and we ought, as a species, to learn to do it much more often than we have.

(1 following message)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense