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 - 05:37pm Dec 26, 2002 EST (# 7058 of 7064)
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 think there's time and reason for talking before fighting.

rshow55 10/20/02 10:20pm includes this:

"Perhaps things are going very well, and international discussions are going well. If you take Iraq at its word, subject to checking that if offers - - we are a long way from a justification for war.

and includes these references:

. Iraq States Its Case By MOHAMMED ALDOURI http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/17/opinion/17ALDO.html

. Iraq Announces Amnesty for Its Prisoners By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Iraq.html

. Mobs Virtually Empty Iraq's Prisons By JOHN F. BURNS http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/21/international/middleeast/21IRAQ.html

" If Iraq can effectively reintegrate those prisoners, it will show a distinct "regime change" in the ways that matter to many, many people.

Those words still seem right to me. I don't have to doubt that Saddam has done some very ugly things. Has some things backwards. All the same - efforts to make accomodations for peace have been real and substantial. It seems to me that we're a long way from having a justification for war - unless we do a lot more checking, and a lot more talking, than we have.

There could be mistakes on both sides - and there could still be plenty of room for solutions that were consistent with every reasonable and reasonably balanced public interest of any nation involved. I think it is possible that the Bush administration has made some misjudgements.

One reason is that I think gisterme has some connections with the Bush administration - and here is a judgement of his that might misjudge the relationships between Bin Laden and Saddam:

_______________

gisterme - 03:35pm Dec 31, 2001 EST (#10594 of 10657)

lchic 12/31/01 1:13am

"...The hand maiden of Bin Laden (the spoilt rich brat) was seeking revenge in relation to '67..."

Not trying to refute your point here, lchic, but it's interesting that Al Quaida had very little to say about Israel and the Palestinean situation until after 9/11. Previously OBL's primary justification for his blood-lust was more Iraq-related. Specifically, his gripe was the presence of "infidels" on Saudi "holy ground" since the slapping-down of Saddam during the Gulf War. Hmmm. Personally I think OBL and Al Quaida are proxies created via exploitation of the islamist movement to allow Saddam to pursue vengance for defeat in that war.

_______

If gisterme is close to GWB - and had this judgement at that time - might that have biased internal intelligence estimates? Personally, I sometimes worry that people in the US government hesitate a great deal before crossing GWB, and go way out of their way to try to please him.

As of course they should. But is could lead to misjudgements. Maybe bloody ones.

Judgements on missile defense, or Korean diplomacy, might be less than perfect, too.

And we know that Kim and Saddam fall way short of perfection.

almarst2002 - 10:02pm Dec 26, 2002 EST (# 7059 of 7064)

CIA accused of torture at Bagram base - http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,12469,865311,00.html

"Turning people over to another government to do something that would amount to torture is a problem. It is torture by proxy, and the US should not be doing that."

(5 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense