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.

gisterme - 06:44pm Feb 22, 2003 EST (# 9225 of 9226)

rshow55 - 05:00pm Feb 22, 2003 EST (#9223 of ...) http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.P5aoaa833ba.2022693@.f28e622/10749

"...Ideas and ideals not universally shared - and certainly not universally shared by the Koreans (North or South.) Aren't we responsible? Somewhat responsible?..."

What we're responsible for is that South Korea is a prosperous democracy and a strong player in the Asian and world economies. It is a threat to no one and its people are free. That's what we're responsible for.

Wheter every individual agrees with a particular ideology or not is irrelevant. I'll guarantee you that there is a tiny minority in South Korea who would want their lives to be like those of the North Koreans...and don't forget who invaded whom at the beginning of the Korean War.

Also, don't speak of the dead in the Korean war as if they were all innocent. How many South Koreans were killed by the North's invasion and the Chinese?

rshow55 - 07:12pm Feb 22, 2003 EST (# 9226 of 9226)
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 didn't say that the US was totally in the wrong - or anything like that. And if the US is in part responsible for the prosperity of S. Korea - it is also in part responsible for the isolation - and resulting poverty of North Korea.

I didn't say that many S. Koreans would want to switch places with the N. Koreans.

But if you look at what the US has done to isolate the North Koreans, and read

TEXT OF THE KOREAN WAR ARMISTICE AGREEMENT http://news.findlaw.com/nytimes/docs/korea/kwarmagr072753.html (look especially at the end)

and think of what the N. Koreans had a reasonable expectation of in 1953 - fifty years ago - the US is NOT blameless.

If we took responsibility for what WE have done - we'd have a better chance of getting other nations to do the same.

There are important reasons for us to take the concerns of other nations in the Security Council seriously.

Your last quote is telling:

Also, don't speak of the dead in the Korean war as if they were all innocent. How many South Koreans were killed by the North's invasion and the Chinese?

The United States made a decision to kill two million civilians - and did so. They weren't all "guilty" in any rational sense I can understand. And more than that - we ought to look for ways to reduce the carnage - not keep finding justification for avoidable conflicts.

The United States need more than military standards - something MacArthur himself was clear about.

WORD FOR WORD / The Long Gray Line For Tomorrow's Army, Cadets Full of Questions by SERGE SCHMEMANN http://nytimes.com/2001/07/08/weekinreview/08SCHM.html

Here's the lead in quote:

" Your mission remains fixed, determined, inviolable — it is to win our wars. All other public purposes will find others for their accomplishment. Yours is the profession of arms — the will to win, the sure knowledge that in war there is no substitute for victory, that the very obsession of your public service must be duty, honor, country."

MacArthur spoke those words after he'd been relieved of command by Truman -- for wanting to widen a war where he'd already ordered the fire bombing of cities, and the destruction of dikes, that killed more than 2 million Koreans in the North -- almost all of them civilians.

Some reservations about MacArthur's position -- concern about its subordination -- a subordination that, in a sense, MacArthur assumes, were expressed in President Eisenhower's Farewell Address http://www.geocities.com/~newgeneration/ikefw.htm We need to do better - and other nations in the UN Security Council should insist on it. If we don't - the world should act to limit our power - as much as people like Bush seem willing to limit our human responsibilities.

Cadets wonder what MacArthur's words mean, and in what ways they should and should not be followed today. We should, too.

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense