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 - 08:55am Feb 21, 2003 EST (# 9167 of 9173)
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.

U.S. Seeks 9 Votes From U.N. Council to Confront Iraq By STEVEN R. WEISMAN with FELICITY BARRINGER http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/21/international/middleeast/21IRAQ.html

Let's see:

"Sure" votes for war:

U.S.A., UK, Spain, and Bulgaria

Bush administration "target votes" that may perhaps vote for war:

Angola, Guinea, Cameroon, Mexico, Chile and Pakistan

Votes leaning strongly against, (those with veto power bolded)

. France, China, Russia , and Germany

We need this war, and need it in a hurry, for what purpose exactly ?

We're living through a time where international relations, and international law - are being renegotiated . Perhaps, in that renegotiation, Russia, China, France, Germany and other countries will consider that they have a duty to represent their interests - and ideas and ideals - especially the ideal of international order - rather than the hegemony of one country. And a country that makes mistakes.

9136 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.fXGTaUDU3QX.1793898@.f28e622/10662

U.S. Awaits Turkey's Response to Aid Deal on Iraq By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Filed at 2:42 p.m. ET http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-US-Iraq.html

"Morton Abramowitz, a former U.S. ambassador to Turkey, said besides Turkey's economic need, a serious hurdle to the deal was that 94 percent of the country does not want a war with Iraq."

If we buy off a level of consensus at this level in Turkey - and buy our way to a very marginal "victory" at the UN Security Council - what have we bought?

An interesting fact about US "hegemony" - expensive as it is. It is dependent on the willingness of other countries to grant us bases - a willingness that is precarious, at best.

How much political action on the part of other nation states would it take to nearly neutralize the US military as an instrument of policy - for anything but defense of US territory?

Not much.

The US is risking an enormous amount - for a payoff that isn't compelling. We're setting the idea of international law aside for what exactly?

rshow55 - 09:01am Feb 21, 2003 EST (# 9168 of 9173)
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.

In 9145 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.fXGTaUDU3QX.1793898@.f28e622/10671 gisterme cites my

9164 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.fXGTaUDU3QX.1793898@.f28e622/10316

"...We need to face the fact that we don't, any of us, have a "direct line to God" - nor has anyone ever had such a thing - ..."

and asks how I can possibly know. Of course, I can't be sure. I can't even be sure about myself - I think I have as good a right to a claim of divine inspiration as Bush, Ashcraft, or others on the Bush team.

. http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md01000s/DetailNGR.htm Detail, and the Golden Rule - Guardian Talk July-August 2002

I'm giving some thought to Gisterme's excellent question about "direct lines to God." I'm sure of this - if you're talking about people - then those people may feel sure of their divine inspiration - but they can't be sure - and no one should trust anybody else's sense of certainty, either. Nor the completeness of understanding - even if such inspiration exists. Even Jesus had some doubts - and told other people to have some doubts about their own judgement - and, after all, there's the saying that "the Lord works in mysterious ways."

Maybe GWB is chosen by God to be a terrible example - and force the world to solve problems by making a mess. Or maybe, GWB, like some people at Exxon - can be mistaken - and has a number of motives - some pure - but some not.

People have to be responsible for what they do - and that means they have to check - and consider other people, as well. There's surely more to say on gisterme's question.

For now, it seems clear to me, and to many other people, including the Pope, and many other prominent clergymen, that the Bush administration is showing very little evidence of any "direct line to God."

(5 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense