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 - 09:44am Feb 12, 2003 EST (# 8829 of 8829)
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 Thomas L. Friedman is one of the most distinguished intellectuals - and students of international realations - going. I also think that he has all of the limitations - some of the dangerous - that often characterise Americans - and that characterise all users of language - when they work in formats where assertion and eloquence fit well - but checking of facts to closure can't be accomodated at all.

Almarst and I have been discussing some key concerns that the world is having to face up to now - some with reference to Friedman's writings. I think this series of postings from March 21, 2001 express concerns that NATO and UN representatives might well consider. (to find others , see http://www.mrshowalter.net/calendar1.htm)

http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md01000s/md1231.htm

http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md01000s/md1238.htm

http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md01000s/md1245.htm

http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md01000s/md1253.htm

http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md01000s/md1261.htm

http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md01000s/md1270.htm

http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md01000s/md1274.htm

http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md01000s/md1279.htm

A sesson on redemptive solutions - with much passionate argument by almarst , is interesting, too:

http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md00100s/md852_854.htm

http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md00100s/md855_858.htm

http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md00100s/md859_861.htm

http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md00100s/md862_864.htm

http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md00100s/md865_867.htm

These ideas - especially the concerns of almarst set out in the links above - would be important to discuss and face in the deliberations at the UN and NATO.

It would also be useful, I believe, for staffs to look carefully at Psychware, Casablance . . . and terror #375 http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/407 , and especially the access to the many links on this thread by gisterme - so that we can face up to some of the problems that we have - and choose to do much better than we've been doing - rather than choose, by default - to go stupidly into avoidable disasters.

If the body of assertions about fact on this thread were checked - and the cost of doing so would be tiny compared to the costs of war - and the costs of continued and excessive containment policies - we could take the incidence of agony and loss from war way down from where it has been - and where it may otherwise be.

I think almarst is right in 8824 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.K9Wsa4NC2zk.246022@.f28e622/10350 when he says that

The current crisis may . . . become a very positive development.

For that to happen, responsible nations have to face what has happened - and decide to do better. It wouldn't be so hard to do better, from where we are.

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense