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 - 08:09am Jan 5, 2003 EST (# 7358 of 7358)
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.

"So to answer the question by example, what would have happened in Hitler's case is that he would never have become Chancelor of Germany and the Third Reich would never have come to pass. But it did.

. With better checking, this could have been prevented.

"The same idea applies to the rest on the list above and others throughout history. The reason such men rise to power is because they are inherently dishonest.

. Yes, but in significant ways, so is George W. Bush.

"Now, your question presumes honesty and good will are simply a choice to be made by the well-meaning...and they are a choice for the well-meaning. However, since the folks who cause the problems are neither honest nor well-meaning, they must lie...they must maintain that false perception before their public...they must hide the dots until their position of power is unassailable.

. That's true, at some levels, of all sorts of politicians - and questions of balance matter a great deal on how one judges the actions involved.

"Secondly, when we're discussing the "relatively few" interfaces we're obviously neglecting the interfaces between intrinsically evil persons like those listed above and their victims. There are tens of millions of those. That doesn't seem like reltaively few to me. It does seem like a gross oversimplification

. I'm not oversimplifying anything, or neglecting to be concerned about victims. I AM saying that systems can be good in some ways, bad in others, and that for peace and stability there are a relatively fre interfaces between nations that have to be right. To avoid fights. If they can't be made right - fights at some level have to happen till the interfaces come to a workable form. Fights about ideas are cheaper than fights that rend flesh - when things can be settled on that level.

"that when coupled with the naive assumption of good intentions reveals a huge flaw in the order, symmetry and harmony of the fundamental basis of the question.

. The question is excellent - because connecting the dots - properly done - can be MUCH better than people have assumed. MUCH better. We'd all be safer if we knew that, and used it.

"If everyone were always honest and well-meaning in their dealings with others then there would be no need to ask the question.

. I have NEVER assumed that.

"No wonder you got a headache, Robert. Don't feel bad though. That question would have given a headache to any well-meaning person who failed to notice that there really is evil in the world.

. I have NEVER failed to notice that there is evil in the world - and ugliness - no little of it in the administration of George W. Bush.

"Perhaps, someday, somehow, evil will be driven out of this world. That would definately reduce the frequency of headaches and heartaches.

. It will NEVER be possible to "drive evil out of the world" in all relevant respects. NEVER - and it is ugly, and evil, and stupid, to think it can be done. Some conflicts and costs are inescapable - including some that can be called evil in clear ways - but we can do a lot better than we've done so far.

(continued in a while)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense