New York Times on the Web Forums Science
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
(303 previous messages)
- 05:28pm Sep 25, 2000 EST (#304
I'd be grateful for a chance to come before you, or one or more
of your representatives, and explain, in detail, with documentation
and ways to check, how dangerous this situation is. Especially if a
good reporter, and a videotape record, were there so what was said
Some mistakes have been made, and you and I weren't very old when
they were made. They can be fixed. A lot of things would improve if
this were done. They are American mistakes, and Americans, and
American leaders, have to fix them.
- 06:32am Sep 26, 2000 EST (#305
Earth vs <^> <^> <^>
ESP is real after all......
Just before crashing yesterday I tarried awhile at this forum,
but I was all out of gas to throw on the fire......
rshowalt......I'm sure your passionate pleas leave bleeding
hearts aflutter in English tea parties but you'll have to prove why
it isn't better to be dead than a slave....... You'll Wish you had
Nukes when 1 Billion Red Chinese make their move......Putting the
genie back in the bottle is no more possible in reality than it is
in legend. It's too late to wonder whether man is "wise enough" to
handle H-bombs. The only way to turn back the clock now is to impose
a ruthless new order......something along the lines of the Khmer
Rouge......it's the knowledge that holds the danger. Those who make
use of the Knowledge...and those who pass the Knowledge to a new
generation must be liquidated......
Ridiculous, of course......and so is "getting rid of" nuclear
weapons. On the contrary, America is fortunate to possess such
Power, and a Science which may indeed deliver even Greater Might
unto her Aegis.
- 07:57am Sep 26, 2000 EST (#306
I stand by my argument. Getting rid of nuclear weapons would be
technically easy. The only hard part is looking at them straight,
with minds and hearts, and with what Dickens called "disciplined
hearts" and seeing to it that nuclear weapons are never made and
Human nature is plenty dark enough as it stands. We can kill each
other, hurt each other, and fend each other off, plenty of different
ways. We don't need nuclear weapons. We're dangerous, as we stand,
I think we should rid the world of nuclear weapons by
Christmas 2000, and I think we should. It would be a date to
remember, for as long as there were people in the world.
The man with more skills for accomplishing that, and the man
best placed for accomplishing that, is William Jefferson Clinton.
Everybody knows he's smart enough, and dangerous enough, to actually
get it done if he wanted to. I hope he wants to.
- 10:15am Sep 26, 2000 EST (#307
Here's a great poem about nuclear war, as it actually is -
"Favorite Poetry" 9/26/00 7:55am
- 08:25pm Sep 26, 2000 EST (#308
Interesting how Civil Defence had programs in the
lateFiftiesSixites to lead us to the innermost sanctum of the home
where we had stores and provisions to sit out an attack. Realisation
that an attack was a last goodbye dawned ... they cut their
programs. There is nothing civil about nuclear attacks.
- 05:04am Sep 27, 2000 EST (#309
"Science in the News" 9/27/00 5:00am
- 06:15am Sep 27, 2000 EST (#310
Earth vs <^> <^> <^>
Yeah, we had those classes in high school...... One term laying
out the struggle against World Bolshevism...and a term on Civil
Don't let defeatists or 5th column rumor-mongers sap your will to
survive. It is very possible to survive the critical period of
prompt radiation and overpressure. Careful planning will minimize
exposure to fallout.
Remember......after the surprise attack, Ivan will make his move.
- 06:26am Sep 27, 2000 EST (#311
There's something I feel the need to say. I don't think I've been
unfair, but I've been incomplete on a matter that concerns both
justice and hope.
If Bill Clinton has been imperceptive, and acquiesced in bad
things not of his origination in nuclear policy, so have previous
He's paid attention, primarily, and his experience comes,
primarily, from domestic politics. He is perhaps the most
outstandingly effective politician of our time, because he is able
to get people together, in ways that work for them. (Ways that
require a minimum of deception, and a maximum of clarity). He does
this so well that, in spite of his flaws, and disproportionate
attacks on him based on these flaws, he has led the United States of
America outstandingly well. Look how well the nation is doing, in
many, many ways where he has made, or led in the making of, crucial
I believe that W. J. Clinton is, flaws and all, a gifted,
careful, moral actor. He leads people into accomodations that
actually work long term. Only morally straight leaders can do this
as well as Clinton does it. In my view, we may not have had a more
careful, effective moral actor counting everything done, with
reasonable weightings on things done in the White House since
Roosevelt (no angel himself.)
I think many of the people who hate Bill Clinton most, especially
Southerners, basically hate him for the good and careful things he's
done. As governor of Arkansas, he worked hard, year after year, to
sweep away the vestiges of the rationaliztions of slavery and racial
injustice, to make a freer and better society possible. He did so,
and stayed an effective politician. He made some headway. He is
widely hated for it, and the people who hate him for this will do
what they can to blow anything he does wrong surreally out of
proportion. (Not that he's an angel.)
If Bill Clinton wanted to rid the world of nuclear weapons, there
would be nobody better fit to do it, or with a more solid moral
right to insist on it. Look at the good things Clinton's done. All
of them. His faults, ugly as they are, are relatively small, and
he's faced the consequences of his mistakes with considerable
discipline and courage.
Notwithstanding, nuclear weapons, and American policy concerning
them, are as ugly and dangerous as they are. I hope he does
something about them.
M. Robert Showalter
(11579 following messages)
New York Times on the Web Forums Science