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.

almarst2002 - 03:29pm Feb 11, 2003 EST (# 8818 of 8821)

The Arab television station, al-Jazeera, has said it has no knowledge of a new tape attributed to al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden, contradicting a claim by the US Secretary of State Colin Powell. - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2750439.stm

rshow55 - 03:38pm Feb 11, 2003 EST (# 8819 of 8821)
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.

Almarst , all nations "try to shape the world to its perceived benefits."

These days, if you want an economic argument for US international function - and want it to make business sense - look at the idea that the US is looking for reasons to justify a huge military expenditure paid for my American taxpayer.

You can't justify the 350 billion US military budget on the basis of "exploitation" - there just isn't nearly enough money exploited by the US to cover that. By and large - the US is not an exploiter of foreigners. There just isn't much money in doing so in the modern world.

The point doesn't mean that things are dangerous.

From the American perspective, some key things may be going very well. Here's a problem summary from Wizard's Chess http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/05/opinion/05SUN1.html

. Washington must simultaneously cope with three separate and potentially grave threats — from Iraq, from North Korea and from the threat of reconstituted international terrorist networks.

Those are all real, valid reasons for concern. How are current developments inconsistent with full satisfaction of these concerns?

If the international community, including the vatican, can assist in the resolution of these threats - that might be done in ways that also meet the most basic needs of the Islamic world, of NATO, and of both the North and South Koreans.

That is, if people are rational. There are signs that some people are .

People are upset - but they are also working - and taking responsibility for their own interests. The more that happens - the less the US needs to function as a hegemon.

Almarst , if you look at the amount of effort gisterme has put on this thread - and you assume, as I do, that gisterme has some connections to the Bush administration -- well, you may not like everything gisterme says (and I know I don't) - but gisterme is trying to solve some problems, too.

almarst2002 - 03:57pm Feb 11, 2003 EST (# 8820 of 8821)

"Washington must simultaneously cope with three separate and potentially grave threats — from Iraq, from North Korea and from the threat of reconstituted international terrorist networks."

And with destruction of major after-WWII World's institutions and Laws.

Interestingly, all those threats have the same "Made in USA" stamp.

almarst2002 - 04:02pm Feb 11, 2003 EST (# 8821 of 8821)

The abolition of ABM treaty, the unprecedented arm race, the continuation of development of "unconventional" warfare, the race to dominate the orbit - all those are seeds for a new and ever more dangerous threats. Both symmetrical and, even more dangerously, ASSYMETRICAL.

As far as I can remember, the basic law of Newton stated it a long time ago - "Any force is always get ballanced by a counter-force".

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense