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 - 05:09pm Mar 14, 2003 EST (# 9938 of 9943)

bbbuck - You mean Rob's real name might be Algernon?

almarst2003 - 05:18pm Mar 14, 2003 EST (# 9939 of 9943)

THE LIKELY OUTCOME - http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/03/14/MN22108.DTL

"A classified State Department report expresses deep skepticism that installing a new regime in Iraq will foster the spread of democracy in the Middle East, a claim President Bush has made in trying to build support for a war, according to intelligence officials familiar with the document.

The report exposes significant divisions within the Bush administration over the so-called democratic domino theory, one of the arguments that underpins the case for invading Iraq.

The report, which has been distributed to a small group of top government officials but not publicly disclosed, says that daunting economic and social problems are likely to undermine basic stability in the region for years, let alone prospects for democratic reform.

Even if some version of democracy took root -- an event the report casts as unlikely -- anti-American sentiment is so pervasive that elections in the short term could lead to the rise of Islamic-controlled governments hostile to the United States.

mazza9 - 05:57pm Mar 14, 2003 EST (# 9940 of 9943)
"Quae cum ita sunt" Caesar's Gallic Commentaries

bbbuck:

Robkettenburg was in a auto accident and alleges that the CIA planted a "bug" in his spleen!

I guess when the chips are down, so are his knickers!

wokka wokka

rshow55 - 06:05pm Mar 14, 2003 EST (# 9941 of 9943)
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 had no intention of conveying the information that you recieved. Pardon me for phrasing what I intended to say badly.

Surely, especially if status is all that matters, you're absolutely right that

" If two presidents and a PM are the prime consultatnts, then I'd say the meeting is more than adaquately staffed.

Superbly staffed in a status and ceremonial sense. But decision making matters, and some of the time, that decision depends on information - sometimes crosschecked information. The principals, no matter how responsible and how brilliant, might do with some support. It was that support that I had in mind.

Here is what I meant to say, with words I should have put in the first time added:

" Is the meeting adequately staffed at a support level that makes sure, with checklists, databases, and other resources, that the principles have access to the information and checklists they might need? A high ranking enlisted man could check - and might be the best person for that checking purpose. Have the subordinate staffs involved listed what matters - to people and interests that have to be dealt with? Are key facts listed - and the reasons they matter clear? A decent first year graduate student in any number of good programs (including good journalism programs) could check this, too. The best person - on short notice, could probably be found by asking the very best beat reporter anybody could find to finger that person.

My intention was to have the support available - but with such low status that it was plain that it was information that support staff was providing - not decision making. With the added words, which I apologize for not having put in the first time, I stand by what I said. I've been "insubordinate" from time to time, for reasons I thought sufficient to justify possible risks and discomforts. I had no intention of being anything but constructive this time.

If the President of the United States is to solve problems - he needs resources he can use. Roosevelt traveled with pretty extensive staffs, when it mattered, in terms of what was logistically supported in his time.

(2 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense