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 - 01:20pm Feb 19, 2002 EST (#11630 of 11635)

MD11564 rshow55 2/15/02 6:00pm

We should be acting to reinforce ourselves, and our culture, and to destabilize the aspects of our enemies that make them our enemies.

There are basic human needs, and knowing them gives a sense of both how we are strong, and how we are fragile. And how our enemies are strong, and how they are fragile. We are MUCH stronger, and less fragile, than our enemies if we just play it straight, on issues of fact and straight dealing, and do things that make military sense. Including things needed for effective deterrance, and effective interdiction.

Here are some basic, universal relationships that we need to take into account -- and that make our opportunities clear.

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs set out with an essay and image in rshow55 2/9/02 12:09pm and rshowalter 9/24/01 11:05am

and Berle's Laws of Power from Power by Adolf A. Berle . . . 1969 ... Harcourt, Brace and World, N.Y. set out in MD1066 rshowalter 3/16/01 5:36am

We have to use the force we have - - but ideas also matter. Berle's laws of power include this

Three: Power is invariably based on a system of ideas of philosophy. Absent such a system or philosophy, the institutions essential to power cease to be reliable, power ceases to be effective, and the power holder is eventually displaced.

Our ideas and ideals, when we live up to them, are vigorous. The system of "ideas" that the terrorists have are contradictory and fragile.

The United States depends on technical competence and straight dealing -- Enronation works against us.

We need to force the terrorists, and the cultures that support to them, to confront the lies and evasions that support terror, and keep them poor. Peace and stability in the long term require that we destabilize these cultures in this way -- enough for our own safety, and for human decency.

For us to be able to do that, we have to be competent and honest ourselves.

If we were, we'd have almost the whole world behind us -- and terrorism would shrivel.

We waste more than resources when we squander our treasure on MD programs that can't work, and cold war weapons that don't matter. We should spend those resources in the national interest. And build our credibility by competent actions, not stupid actions.

Competent actions will have to include our taking care of the people in the military-industrial complex, and finding ways that politicians can serve their constituents better than now would have to be part of that.

With honest accounting, and some routine checking -- we could do that, and while doing so make the United States stronger and safer in every way that matters.

But it is fundamental that we have to be competent and honest ourselves.

almarst-2001 - 02:08pm Feb 19, 2002 EST (#11631 of 11635)

Hi Robert, Lunarchick, and all whom I came to know on this forum.

If anything, the recent events for the last 6 month or so, just reinforced my views on the nature of US policy.

So, my questions remained the same:

Why the US, already having by far the most impressive military force, still spends on a military more then a dosen other largest spenders combined? And asks for more! Much more. Not for the war on terrorism, I assume.

Why the Bush didn't want to sign a strategic nuclear arms reduction aggreement with Putin? And to destroy, rather then conserve, the nuclear warheads?

Why the US opens the legal doors to resume the underground nuclear testings?

Why the US continues to develop chemical and biological wearpons, secretly or under the cover of the thinnest of the legal loophalls?

Why the US rejects the International War Crimes Tribunal, unless it leaves US military out of its jurisdiction? While directly financing (against the UN law) those it helped to establish?

Why the US, while officially condemming the spread of arms, remains the largest arms seller in the World (40% aff all)?

By the way, did you see the pictures of "humanitarian" bombing of Yugoslavia?

rshow55 - 02:30pm Feb 19, 2002 EST (#11632 of 11635)

Sure did. And I'm very glad you're back, with such important questions. At the same time, I think you might approve, as I do, of much that is reported today of President Bush's trip to Korea.

. Bush Arrives in South Korea for Two-Day Visit By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Bush-Asia.html

Bad as some things are, and indefensible as they are, it wouldn't take too many adjustments, for them to be much better. It seems to me that some things we've discussed before, and that you treat above, might be worth touching on again -- some things not practical before may be practical now.

The things you question, and object to, ought to be questioned by Americans, as well.

rshow55 - 02:32pm Feb 19, 2002 EST (#11633 of 11635)

Maybe, to quote a phrase from gisterme ,

" we could save the taxpayers a lot of money . .

and make the world a safer and more beautiful place while we're doing it.

(2 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense