Discuss this Article

• Peter Russo (View Email) on December 18, 2002
  There is a very large difference between "determining to deploy systems before they have been tested" and "[pursuing] a missile defense system." If we decide not to pursue systems such as the missile defense system that have the possibility of redefining war and U.S. military power there will be no such thing as progress. Not only that, but there have already been missile defense systems that have worked marginally. We know that it is possible to stop at least a fraction of incoming missiles. So why not spend money on more research so that all of incoming missiles can be destroyed. And just imagine the implications of a missile defense system. It will have paid for itself millions of times over if it is used successfully just once - one time for each life that is saved.
  Not only that, but imagine how different current politics would be if we had a missile defense system. The U.S. would need not be afraid of North Korea's or Iraq's missiles. We could go in slowly and disarm them at our leisure.
  Many people have stated that nuclear weapons are something that they wish could be "uninvented." This cannot ever be accomplished. However, the next best thing can be: they can be rendered useless by a reliable missile defense system.
  Reply
• Orion Peter on December 29, 2002
  A Missle Defense Systems would not have stopped September 11th. We even KNEW it was going to happen, but ignored warnings. A thoughrout review of our foreign policy needs to be considered before we dig ourselves into an even deeper hole. Before Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech, North Korea had opened up discussion with South Korea and had expressed an interest in rebuilding diplomatic relations with the US. What do you think happened when Bush made his little speech? Need help? He flushed it all down the toilet. Not only is this missle defense system going to drain even more tax payer wallets and fatten that of General Electric and other arms manufacturers, its going to place us into an even more dangerous global position along with undermining EVERY SINGLE foreign relationship.
  Reply
• Jacinda Moore (View Email) on January 9, 2003
  Peter -
  > We know that it is possible to stop at least a
  > fraction of incoming missiles. So why not spend
  > money on more research so that all of incoming
  > missiles can be destroyed.
  
  You make it sound like it rains missles every day... to the best of my knowledge there haven't been any missles launched at the U.S.
  
  The U.S. government cannot continue to threaten all other countries into submission. ~That~ is the fastest way to start a war. If you want to save lives, don't start a war.
  If our government thought about ~why~ other countries are angry with us instead of beating them up, it wouldn't need all this stuff.
  Reply
• tony (View Email) on February 12, 2003
  what choice now do we have. Our great presdent clinton could have already put this system into play but for some inmoral reason he just didnt have time. Now we just have to hope for the best.
  Reply