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 - 01:41pm Feb 24, 2003 EST (# 9264 of 9264)
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.

Gisterme , I will annotate yourimportant 9184 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.0bmfavXZ4JM.2264624@.f28e622/10710 today. I made a mistake when I said tomorrow, a little while ago. Your recent postings,

9255 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?18@@.f28e622/10781

9257 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.0bmfavXZ4JM.2264624@.f28e622/10783

9259 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.0bmfavXZ4JM.2264624@.f28e622/10785

will make that annotation a little easier.

With respect to France - questions about lust for power are fair questions about the leaders of any nation state - and since it is fair for people to ask such questions about Bush, it is fair to ask such questions about Chirac and the rest of the French leadership, as well.

In any particular case - people have to make judgements in terms of what is specifically said and done - and what is known about the motivations and facts connected to it.

I've never doubted that he word "criminal" can apply to Saddam Hussein - and to some other national leaders, now and in the past, as well. But the question of action is what ought to be done now - with international relations as they are - precedents as they are - and United States past actions as they have been, as well.

I have some doubts about the probability of future crimes on a global scale from Saddam - and I'm not alone in that. I don't vote in high councils on such things -- but nations that do are going to have to be convinced that the means proposed fit a reasonable judgement of what is be reasonably expected, or feared. . That convincing is not yet done.

U.N. Members' Positions on Iraq Feb 23 - http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-UN-Iraq-Glance.html

U.S. and Britain Set to Introduce New Resolution on Iraq Today By REUTERS http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/24/international/europe/24WIRE-IRAQ.html

". . .a spokesman for British Prime Minister Tony Blair has said he hoped would be voted on by mid-March, a signal there would be no invasion of Iraq before that time.

"Getting approval will be difficult in face of opposition from France, Russia and China, who have veto power on the 15-member council. . . So far only Spain and Bulgaria support the United States and Britain while the other nations have spoken in favor of France's position for continuing arms inspections or are uncomfortable in having to make a decision.

The Bush administration has to find ways to appeal to the reason, and the sense of fairness, of the representatives of the states that matter in this case. Just calling them idiots and knaves would be bad politics even if it were true. But so far as I can tell - it isn't true. (I admit that I just lost my temper - and am sorry that I did so.)

So far, the argument for war hasn't been sufficiently convincing to the representatives and populations of most other nations - and President Bush sometimes acts as if he feels that, if it is not convincing - he'd be justified in acting outside the UN. No doubt he knows a great deal that I do not - but I'm not convinced - and I believe that Bush may be very much underestimating how important international law ought to be - and how much in the interest of the United States it is to respect other nations.

As far as argument goes - here's the best argument for disarming Saddam that I've read - if the facts and relations it states are actually true and balanced. If they are - I hope the US can make the points effectively.

. Why Saddam will never disarm William Shawcross says the Iraqi leader is prepared to go to any lengths to hold on to his deadly weapons Sunday February 23, 2003 http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,901135,00.html

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense