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.

lchic - 08:55am Feb 25, 2002 EST (#11802 of 11827)

My how those 'secret' departments that run 'unchecked' like to set their own agendas - right or wrong!

THE SUSPECTS | Death of Reporter Puts Focus on Pakistan's Intelligence Unit | By DOUGLAS JEHL
New links between Islamic militants and the Pakistan intelligence agency are intensifying suspicions about the agency's role in the kidnapping of Daniel Pearl. (NYT)

lchic - 09:01am Feb 25, 2002 EST (#11803 of 11827)

"What does this have to do with missile defense?"

lchic - 09:46am Feb 25, 2002 EST (#11804 of 11827)

Those who ran Seventeeth Century foreign policy - most often had an end game - empire. Gobbling up weaker nation states.

What's the USA 'end game' ?

Carlyle Snakes and Carlyle Ladders?!

almarst-2001 - 11:11am Feb 25, 2002 EST (#11805 of 11827)

"The possibility that Missile Defense might deter the development of ICBMs and weapons of mass destruction might justify the expenditure."

Can you explain, please? This goes against any common sense.

lchic - 11:58am Feb 25, 2002 EST (#11806 of 11827)

!

lchic - 12:01pm Feb 25, 2002 EST (#11807 of 11827)

.

almarst-2001 - 01:08pm Feb 25, 2002 EST (#11808 of 11827)

Thanks.

almarst-2001 - 04:43pm Feb 25, 2002 EST (#11809 of 11827)

"MANY FAILED COMMUNIST PRACTICES ARE NOW FULLY OPERATIONAL, ALBEIT UNDER DIFFERENT LABELS IN THE EU AND USA." - http://english.pravda.ru/main/2002/02/25/26640.html

rshow55 - 05:49pm Feb 25, 2002 EST (#11810 of 11827)

Great posts! Almarst , you're raising profound questions.

Here's a key question, it seems to me.

. Are the interests of the military-industrial complex the same as the interests of the American people?

Have they been confused?

It seems to me that they have -- that the confusion has been profound, and that the distortions involved are well worth questioning.

It seems to me that the things Eisenhower warned against have happened - - - and we must make a distinction between the interests of the United States, and the interests of the "military-industrial complex" and the people who profit from it. One difference is basic. For the country as a whole, defense expenditures may be associated with benefits, but are costs . For the military-industrial complex, and those who profit from it, defense expenditures are benefits, pure and simple. For the MI complex -- the more that his spent, the better.

In diplomacy, discussions and clarifications about what "national interest" is are fundamental, and confusions about them are dangerous.

We've done a lot on this thread, and I think lchic summarized it well. MD11727 lchic 2/22/02 2:56pm

It seems to me that Russia and our NATO allies, who are now very unhappy, have to ASK for rational explanations .

Questions about the technical possibilites of missile defense are a good place to start -- because the questions are clear - and mistakes and papered-over problems on both the midcourse correction system described in the Coyle Report http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/nmdcoylerep.pdf and in the laser programs such as ABL are so basic and so blatant.

Nobody without rank, and independent position, would be nearly as likely to get answers to these questions as world leaders, raising questions in public, would be.

It may not be standard diplomacy, but it might be very effective for leaders of other countries to ask these questions of elected representatives in the United States - who ARE being asked to act in the national interest.

The United States owes all concerned an explanation of what the national interest is - and technical frauds and boondoggles cannot reasonably serve those national interests.

Is there reasonable understanding about what the national interest is? Explanations that could stand the light of day, in the US and elsewhere?

Some things may be held for "tactical surprise" - - but the national interest ought not to be clear to all concerned.

lchic - 05:55pm Feb 25, 2002 EST (#11811 of 11827)

When a VAMPIRE is shown a crucifix .. he recoils and retreats .. for the symbol of the crucifix holds significant truths. The vampire/Ministry of Lies is with Rumsfeld ... and Bushy purports to be 'very upset' about it .. now that he knows.

Begs the Question - how many 'truths' are hidden from WalkerB.

Begs the Question - Does Rumsfeld (like Oliver North) run his own agenda ...has funding to run it .. and is outside the control of both the Congress and the President.

Begs the Question - is Rumsfeld an agent of Bad/or/Good

It's important to ask questions .. the media today just take the media release at face value and don't ask questions - even though it's important to do so.

(16 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense