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 (6768 previous messages)

manjumicha - 02:15am Dec 17, 2002 EST (# 6769 of 6779)

Since I feel somewhat responsible for providing the reporting by conjecture to fill in the blanks regarding west's lack of honest analysis of NK capabilities, here is an interesting article...hopefully the gap between perception and reality can be narrowed sufficently to prevent adventures of a few with different agenda from US interests, acting within Bush's government.

CNN Article:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- North Korea last week delivered 15 gunboats to Iran in a move that is raising concerns with the U.S. Navy about Iran's maritime capabilities, Pentagon sources said Monday.

One U.S. naval source said the boats could carry torpedoes and explosives and lay mines. The boats were delivered via an Iranian freighter to the port of Bandar Abbas at the mouth of the Persian Gulf, the sources said.

The shipment includes six coastal patrol boats, two gunboats and five semi-submersibles that can carry two torpedoes each, the sources said.

U.S. officials said they had no reason to believe Iran would target U.S. military vessels in the Persian Gulf, but noted the shipment made the area more complex to assess in terms of threats.

manjumicha - 02:41am Dec 17, 2002 EST (# 6770 of 6779)

It was specially for mazza type men of "faith" who rely a bit too much on Jane's reports in forming his judgements...about things, especially NK and the reason it is a thorn in US's side.

lunarchick - 03:16am Dec 17, 2002 EST (# 6771 of 6779)

Jayne goes with Tazan

    They swing
    through
    international
    jungle
    untangling the vines
    where others
    just bungle!
ti: Pacing Cheetah

lchic2002

lunarchick - 03:25am Dec 17, 2002 EST (# 6772 of 6779)

'The Poster' asks if one might be 'away for Christmas' ..

    Poster i reside downUnder ... Home is 'Away' ...
    Do we hear a 'please may i be excused' from the Poster
    Next he'll be telling us
    he knows Santa's toymaker ...

    Does 'cobblers' cover it?
    :)

kalter.rauch - 05:58am Dec 17, 2002 EST (# 6773 of 6779)
Earth vs <^> <^> <^>

bbbuck 12/16/02 11:52am

...what's the status on the anti-[communist] campaign?

Sehr Gut, Herr Oberst!!!

Sie Machiavellian Principle...Divide and Conquer UND Planting Seeds of Doubt in their midst ist proceeding most expeditiously, Mein Herr!!!

Sturm GEFAHR fur die Bolshevist Schweinerein!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

commondata - 06:34am Dec 17, 2002 EST (# 6774 of 6779)

Kalter - see http://dan.hersam.com/opinions/exclamation.html

almarst2002 - 08:09am Dec 17, 2002 EST (# 6775 of 6779)

Iraq Sanctions: Humanitarian Implications and Options for the Future - http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/2002/paper.htm

"The 1977 Protocols to the Geneva Conventions on the laws of war include a prohibition of economic sieges against civilians as a method of warfare. Ironically, legal consensus does not yet define economic sanctions as subject to these laws, which apply in warfare and which legally require belligerents to target military rather than civilian objectives. Sanctions operate in a hazy legal status between war and peace. (9) Unlike the dramatic, visible toll of military action, sanctions take their effect gradually, indirectly and with low visibility. "

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