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.

rshow55 - 11:05am Dec 13, 2002 EST (# 6575 of 6588)
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.

It seems to me that, muddle, carnage, and all, some progress is being made. And when things are dangerous - it is a good thing if people have sense enough to be afraid.

I also notice (pardon me for being unsentimental here - but I worry about this) that in the last year - though we've been at a "war" - - and passions have run very strongly - body counts remain comparativly very low.

We could do better - and if we keep our heads, I think that may even be likely.

My guess is that if the US invades Iraq in a way that flaunts the will of the Security Council - the US will, in a fairly short time - be relieved of the expense of stationing troops in Korea, Europe, Japan, and some other places, as well.

That might be a good thing for the whole world - including the United States - though there would have to be many adjustments.

My guess is that many people in the Bush administration are aware of how much is at stake for American power, in the decisions about Iraq. My guess is that they also know how limited American military forces are in use. The consequences of using them, in a complicated world, are complicated. There are a lot of people, all through the administration - definitely including the military - who know that.

Sometimes the Bush administration responds stupidly - - but not always. I'm not convinced that things are going so badly.

If Iraq is really disarming - I for one would be surprised if they are running any real risk at all. All Saddam would have to do is get on the phone to some power holders who could help make his case (if it is true). Ways of doing it have been discussed on this thread before. After consultation with UN people who have strong professional committments against war - Saddam could make his case, without having to be perfect - if Iraq was really disarming.

On the other hand, if Iraq is just perpertrating one more exercise in evasion - regime change will be inevitable - and might even occur in ways that help to civilize all concerned, and make things better.

gisterme - 03:35pm Dec 13, 2002 EST (# 6576 of 6588)

rshow55 12/8/02 7:08pm

"...If the Saudi's do not control Al Queda , perhaps they, and we, should consider the Golden Rule .

What, with powers reversed, and injuries reversed, would they do to us under such circumstances?..."

What does that have to do with the golden rule, Robert?

If you want to consider the golden rule with respect to the Saudis, then the question we need to ask is "how are we treating the Saudis in spite of the fact that they may be more involved in terrorism than their government is willing to admit?".

The golden rule is not about doing to others what they would do to you is it? No! It's about doing to others what you would have them do to you. It's about treating others the way you'd like to be treated even when they don't treat you that way.

Wouldn't you agree, Robert?

gisterme - 03:55pm Dec 13, 2002 EST (# 6577 of 6588)

rshow55 12/8/02 9:20pm

...Using the techniques lchic and I discussed above - and other skills abundantly shown on this thread - a lot could be done..."

Sure, Robert. A lot could be done. A lot of what? You and lchic always do a lot. The problem is that all you do accomplishes nothing. I don't think people care much about just doing a lot when there's nothing accomplished by the effort. You and lchic have demonstrated your collective ability to do a lot and accomplish nothing for a couple of years now. Why would that track record inspire anyone to have confidence in you to accomplish anything in the future?

gisterme - 04:08pm Dec 13, 2002 EST (# 6578 of 6588)

commondata 12/9/02 2:59pm

"...An accompanying edited thread, containing only the serious argument pertaining directly to missile defense, may help busy people through the material..."

That would exclude 99.999% of everything posted by lchic, 99.9% of everything posted by Showalter and about 75% of everything posted by everybody else on this thread. You shouldn't need a CD for that, Robert. I'll bet a single floppy disk would easily hold all the on-topic duscussion from this forum. Of course your "carefully crafted commentary" would undoubtedly need far more storage capacity than the "on topic" portion of the discussion. :-) Given that, I can see why you'd need a CD. Sheesh!

(10 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense