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.

lchic - 07:11pm Jan 23, 2003 EST (# 7955 of 7957)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Nash-game-theory

http://www.google.com/search?num=20&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&newwindow=1&q=Nash+Games+Theory&btnG=Google+Search

almarst2002 - 07:38pm Jan 23, 2003 EST (# 7956 of 7957)

Why We Know Iraq Is Lying - http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/23/opinion/23RICE.html

"The world knows from examples set by South Africa, Ukraine and Kazakhstan what it looks like when a government decides that it will cooperatively give up its weapons of mass destruction"

None of those where after destructive war with US. Nor treatened by one for many years. Nor under severe sunctions. Instead, all where promised and to some extend, given reasonable incentives to do so. However, I don't believe, Ukraine and Kazakhstan would pass cleanly the kind of inspections Iraq has. Nor PROVE they are absolutly clean.

"Iraq is not allowing inspectors "immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted access" to facilities and people involved in its weapons program."

Seems to be, at least de-jure, grossly unsubstantiated.

"The list of people involved with weapons of mass destruction programs, which the United Nations required Iraq to provide, ends with those who worked in 1991 — even though the United Nations had previously established that the programs continued after that date."

Couldn't the same people continue to work after 1991? What kind of argument is that?

"Last week's finding by inspectors of 12 chemical warheads not included in Iraq's declaration was particularly troubling."

EMPTY warheads! Not a small and intentional ommision. Too low for the stateman of a such statue and presumed qualifications.

"Richard Butler, the former chief United Nations arms inspector, estimates that if a larger type of warhead that Iraq has made and used in the past were filled with VX (an even deadlier nerve agent) and launched at a major city, it could kill up to one million people."

What major city lies within a range of Iraqi artillery Mr. Butler is quoted here?

"Iraq has also failed to provide United Nations inspectors with documentation of its claim to have destroyed its VX stockpiles."

The article mentions SARIN as being used in a past by Iraq. How did we get to VX other then Mr. Butler's "example"?

"By both its actions and its inactions, Iraq is proving not that it is a nation bent on disarmament, but that it is a nation with something to hide."

I personaly like INACTIONS most.

And that is as serious a statement one could expect from the leading figure of the major and only superpower?

rshow55 - 07:55pm Jan 23, 2003 EST (# 7957 of 7957)
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.

Search is back. Thanks !

"And that is as serious a statement one could expect from the leading figure of the major and only superpower?"

A leading figure of the major and only superpower has gone on the record - inviting criticism and correction.

Of course, all nations have "something to hide" - and the US hides a great deal, itself.

U.S. Confident Much of Europe Will 'Heed the Call' on Iraq By BRIAN KNOWLTON International Herald Tribune

WASHINGTON, Jan. 23 — The White House expressed firm resolve on Iraq today in the face of pointed French and German criticism, saying that while it was "perfectly possible" that France might not join in if there were military action, several other countries would join in a "strong coalition" and prevail.

If people with influence asked to get some key facts checked - there would be plenty of checkable facts (even just on this board) and as the checking proceeded - a lot would clarify.

Ugly and dangerous as things are, this would be a very hopeful time, if only people actually checked enough so that - with some "collecting the dots" and "connecting the dots" we could have a chance to solve problems. With facts checked to clarity we could.

- - - -

It is reasonable that Iraq really give up weapons of mass destruction. It is reasonable that the US makes some changes, too.

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense