[F] 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.

Earliest Messages Previous Messages Recent Messages Outline (1331 previous messages)

lunarchick - 06:31pm Mar 22, 2001 EST (#1332 of 11890)

Showalter must be 'walkin' the dog' ..!

A lot of posts to catch up on - yewz have been busy!

Just looking at the last post only:

"American attendance to religion - the basis of morality"

Viewing American religion from outside the USA, much of it is 'big business' and tele-religion. The messages and communications may be heartfelt ... but someone somewhere is making big dollars.

If religion is viewed as right-wing .. then my intrepretation of that is 'static/stationary to moving-backwards .. a reflected 'glory' of former times.'

Where religion is left-wing, it may be linked to political pushes for 'rights' and better conditions for the general population.

The President of the USA might be likened to a dealer with a pack of 52 cards - the jokers replaced by hangmen as forces for death. The 52 represent disparate States. The dealer turns the game into a solo game and plays it to his will ... the red/black/card States don't seem to have much of a say about democracy when the dealer has power. The structure of the USA was put together- way back, not to give power to the people, but to the dealer stratagists.

ON the "USSR appeared to present a once in a lifetime opportunity" ... doesn't this have to come from the people within those States. In managment the 'quality management approach is vogue .. build on what there is, plan, work to higher then higher standards (giving the democracy a sense of achievement) and incremental increase the standards upwards .. statistically measuring improvement as per Demming.

Money to arms is 'dead money' ... money towards meeting NEEDS has a multiplier effect and helps an economy grow.

The great thing about CLINTON was the way he gathered an international team to give him varied current (and future) viewpoints. He listened to the wisdom-leaders from their fields of knowledge. There was 'Mr Strategy' from Japan, 'Mr Motivator', 'Mr Trainer', ... and lots of Mr/Ms American leaders in their field from whom he gained an appreciation of how new knowledge was structuring up. On the MD issue the 'gun' wasn't on the wall ... rather in the hands of the unelected fifth estate .... Clinton may have been outgunned!

Interesting here to look at Indonesia .. where the military had, was it one-third of the seats in Jakata Parliament, the people want them (military) OUT, the logical way to do it might be to unpin those seatings and burn them :) so to speak. Some of the USSR countries may have too many military in parliament .. this is seen as a sign of 'weakness' because military minds 'can't think with regards to democratic and commercial growth - with personal freedoms' ... this can be seen in West Africa.

"painfull to some in US to see such a huge economic and military disparity between US and Russia" many people in the street in the US and elsewhere might just assume the game was equal. What is one more or less missile when just a few can blitz the world as we know it. Numbers may not count when missiles are so unusable.

"I tell and you listen and do as I say". This is a symptom of the power of an Empire of arrogance. There might be a need for the players to restructure the game. Fewer trips into the USA, more trips out by Bush, take him off the home ground red carpet, open his eyes to different cultures.

Back to Bush v Clinton. Clinton saw his role as P of the USA, and to my mind he was also a President of the World. He was out in the world for almost a year of his Presidency. He went places, saw things, was shown things, integrated into world cultures, had a sense of his true role. That's why people away from the USA have a lot of respect for Clinton --- he functioned as a world player!

Perhaps countries that are trying to develop and upgrade have to stop 'feeling sorry for themselves' even thought they have a right to, and start to utilise the tools that have made the USA great. These include Management a

lunarchick - 06:31pm Mar 22, 2001 EST (#1333 of 11890)

Perhaps countries that are trying to develop and upgrade have to stop 'feeling sorry for themselves' even thought they have a right to, and start to utilise the tools that have made the USA great. These include Management and Marketing tools. Manage better, get disruptive and corrupt elements to order, and use marketing to sell themselves and their products(to a high standard) out to the world.

The following the USA has relates in part to their business acumen. Their ability to find venture capital, to move 'ideas from inventors and innovators from the rest of the world' to product, to utilise the 'Theory of Diffusion' and disperse funtional product back out to the world.

On the 5th Estate .... the American people might note the Indonesian people ... and look for democracy and the fullest transparent accountability from those receiving tax payer monies as salary. AUDITing, reporting back, and evidence that the will and wishes of the people (not the corrupt and/or evil) reign the day.

Re the Emperor(+forces for darkness) of the USA dictating and telling ... then it is up to other nations to regroup and negotiate. On a USA management standard the 'team' is everything. The team unleashes the potentials and ideas of all within a workplace. In a foreign relational sense, The TEAM, aspect would demand that ALL players learn all roles and teach on as competence develops. The team leader should not be ONE, rather the role should 'revolve' through the players. (see EC and presidency).

rshowalter - 09:21pm Mar 22, 2001 EST (#1334 of 11890)
Robert Showalter

Lunarchick is right. You have a FUTURE to think about, and though anger may be justified, it shouldn't distract you. But you should be careful about what you're ashamed of. When there really ARE extenuating circumstances, or when something in the past that has stained you really IS a bad rap - you should know that, and let others know it -- so that you can have an easier time dealing with members of your own team, and dealing with people in other teams, too.

If Russians could REALLY deal comfortably with your neighbors and potential business partners - and build the trust that can only come, in a real world where people have to check, along with a lot of mutual knowledge a tremendous recovery, economic, cultural, and emotional, might come to Russia. I know a lot of people of good will, including a lot of Americans, would be glad to see that.

Not to forget the history. Or to forgive it. But to remember that your history only constrains what the future can be in the ways that you and the people you cooperate with let it.

Openness and truth are the ways to a secure and prosperous future - because you live in a system that requires a lot of feedback -- and right answers are, far and away, the most productive and safe ones.

More Messages Recent Messages (10556 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Email to Sysop  Your Preferences

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  / Missile Defense

Home | Site Index | Site Search | Forums | Archives | Shopping

News | Business | International | National | New York Region | NYT Front Page | Obituaries | Politics | Quick News | Sports | Science | Technology/Internet | Weather
Editorial | Op-Ed

Features | Arts | Automobiles | Books | Cartoons | Crossword | Games | Job Market | Living | Magazine | Real Estate | Travel | Week in Review

Help/Feedback | Classifieds | Services | New York Today

Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company