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 (6722 previous messages)

almarst2002 - 07:30am Dec 16, 2002 EST (# 6723 of 6732)

Continue:

Haiti - 1914-34 - Troops occupied Haiti after a revolution and occupied Haiti for 19 years.

Dominican Rep 1916-24 - Marines occupied the Dominican Republic for eight years.

Cuba - 1917-33 - Troops landed and occupied Cuba for 16 years; Cuba became an economic protectorate.

World War I - 1917-18 - Navy and Army sent to Europe to fight the Axis powers.

Russia - 1918-22 - Navy and troops sent to eastern Russia after the Bolshevik Revolution; Army made five landings.

Honduras - 1919 - Marines sent during Honduras' national elections.

Guatemala - 1920 - Troops occupied Guatemala for two weeks during a union strike.

Turkey - 1922 - Troops fought nationalists in Smyrna.

China - 1922-27 - Navy and Army troops deployed during a nationalist revolt.

Honduras - 1924-25 - Troops landed twice during a national election.

Panama - 1925 - Troops sent in to put down a general strike.

China - 1927-34 - Marines sent in and stationed for seven years throughout China.

El Salvador - 1932 - Naval warships deployed during the FMLN revolt under Marti.

World War II - 1941-45 - Military fought the Axis powers: Japan, Germany, and Italy.

Yugoslavia - 1946 - Navy deployed off the coast of Yugoslavia in response to the downing of an American plane.

Uruguay - 1947 - Bombers deployed as a show of military force.

Greece - 1947-49 - United States operations insured a victory for the far right in national "elections."

Germany - 1948 - Military deployed in response to the Berlin blockade; the Berlin airlift lasts 444 days.

Philippines - 1948-54 - The CIA directed a civil war against the Filipino Huk revolt.

Puerto Rico - 1950 - Military helped crush an independence rebellion in Ponce.

Korean War - 1951-53 - Military sent in during the war.

Iran - 1953 - The CIA orchestrated the overthrow of democratically elected Mossadegh and restored the Shah to power.

Vietnam - 1954 - The United States offered weapons to the French in the battle against Ho Chi Minh and the Viet Minh.

Guatemala - 1954 - The CIA overthrew the democratically elected Arbenz and placed Colonel Armas in power.

Egypt - 1956 - Marines deployed to evacuate foreigners after Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal.

commondata - 07:41am Dec 16, 2002 EST (# 6724 of 6732)

fredmoore 12/15/02 9:59pm - The problem as I see it is .... you are trying to tell nature she must be nice ... you cannot do that ... she is a beast.

We won't presume to tell lions not to eat zebras. We can tell particular national governments that bombing their way around the Middle East may not, in the long term, be conducive to the values they claim to hold dear. We can try to tell them that their double-standards, arms export policies and disrespect for international organisations, consensus, and agreements are unhelpful. We may occasionally mention that the play-dough of international law doesn't have to be molded into the phallus of an ICBM.

And ... I do not agree with certain folk, that this forum has been, and is, off topic. Knowledge is the best MISSILE DEFENCE and this forum is in the spirit of that knowledge.

[Applause]

I think we are all looking to avoid those military solutions but the answer is not in morality or social science or observing the Golden Rule. Rather it is in the following practical methods of decreasing ENTROPY in our environment.

See A Journal of Sociocybernetics. Michael P. Byron, author of Modeling the Global International System: Logical Consistency with Theory, Internal Self-Consistency, and Empirical Falsifiability, should inform Mazza and Gisterme with their knee-jerk accusations of anti-Americanism and Communism:

In the event that our government does go to war for reasons other that direct national defense from attack, we as citizens, if we disagree with these actions, have a patriotic duty to protest. It’s the American way. Ironically, my growing up with the military led me to this conclusion.

Read about his bid for Congress here. Fredmore, you then go on to consider some technical fixes, but the decision to put a trillion dollars into missile defense rather than thermoelectric fabric is not value free. I think a lot of answers will be found in morality, social science and considering the Golden Rule (whether or not that means "Do unto others..." or "Those with the gold make the rules").

almarst2002 - 07:46am Dec 16, 2002 EST (# 6725 of 6732)

It is also telling to watch the reaction and coverage in US of the events in Venezuela.

Particularely in light of the possible strike by NYC transportation workers - "Mr. Pataki urged the union not to forget that the M.T.A., the state and the city all faced large deficits, and he issued a stern warning: "There are severe penalties to engage in an illegal strike."

Mr. Bloomberg vowed to seek damages against the union, whether or not there is a walkout. City officials, who predict the city's economy would lose $100 million to $350 million each day of a strike, have filed a lawsuit seeking $1 million from the union on the first day of a walkout, doubling every day thereafter; $25,000 against each member, doubling each day; and $5 million for the costs it says it has incurred preparing for a threatened walkout.

"You can rest assured whether there is a strike or not, we will do a careful accounting and we will try to recoup all those expenses," Mr. Bloomberg said. "We don't have the money to go and waste."

The M.T.A. has obtained a court injunction ordering the union not to strike. Under the state's Taylor Law, which bars strikes by public employees, the workers could be fined two day's pay for each day on strike."

More Messages Recent Messages (7 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