New York Times on the Web Forums Science
Russian military leaders have expressed concern about US plans
for a national missile defense system. Will defense technology be
limited by possibilities for a strategic imbalance? Is this just SDI
all over again?
(7235 previous messages)
- 02:01pm Jul 19, 2001 EST (#7236
7/19/01 1:22pm said that "This forum is NOT about the Osprey
issue." --- and of course it isn't.
The Osprey matter, in the cites I gave it, does illustrate
how the command organizations of the military, and their
contractors, can make mistakes, and have those mistakes go on
uncorrected for a long time. It also illustrates, I believe, how
people in organizations like Carlyle can have extraordinary
opportunities and temptations.
discripto's right that the military industrial complex has
gone on a long time -- far longer than the Bush administration - -
indeed, it was well established when Eisenhower used it so
effectively as a leader WWII . I've quoted Eisenhower's Farewell
Address from time to time to make the point.
Bush didn't make the mess. But he's embracing the problem, when
he should be fixing it.
On the issue of repetition -- as minds get made up -- often
there's a great deal of discourse - big word counts -- a lot of
matching - - and a chance to examine contradictions. Also a chance
to see what ideas get attacked, and can stand attack, and what ideas
And in the end, when things work well, simple ideas come
into focus, and become accepted. I've been trying to do some of that
here. With some personal inadequacies and insecurities, but
proceeding as best I've known how. And no doubt being less effective
than I could be.
Here are simple things that I believe:
. Missile defense, which might be very
desirable if it were practical to do, is grossly impractical. We
need to find other ways to make peace, that can work. And we need
to redeploy the financial and human resources the US has now
overcommitted to military function where they can do less harm and
- 02:52pm Jul 19, 2001 EST (#7237
Condoleezza, who's major experience is at the academy, says we
shoudn't be restrained from pursuing a missile defense shield by any
legally binding treaty such as the 1972 ABM accord.
Like a true neophyte, she asserts that military treaties are a
relic of the "cold war." She would like to apply laissez faire
principles to relations between governments.
Anything goes with the Bush administration. Whoop de do!
- 03:00pm Jul 19, 2001 EST (#7238
11728 - 02:52pm Jul 19, 2001 EST (#7237 of 7237)
""Condoleezza, who's major experience is at the academy,""
Uhhh No...Her major experience is Soviet relations. Her
ideological views come from Hans J. Morgenthau and Kenneth Waltz.
She described herself as a "firm believer in the principles of
Morgenthau" "I read early on and was influenced by [Hans]
It is her ideological views regarding the system for which we live
that makes Rice view the world the way she does. She comes from the
OTHER camp. I am against NMD, but what you said of Rice is just
clearly wrong and demonstrates that YOU not her may lack the
understanding of the issues at hand. Sorry.
- 03:15pm Jul 19, 2001 EST (#7239
Rice got to be Provost at Stanford University . There is
probably no evil of which human beings are capable that she has not
thought of -- no negotiation subtlety that she has not encountered,
or heard of.
We aren't dealing with fools here, but with an issue of
paradigm conflict , where it matters what ideas are right --
and it can take checking to find out.
- 03:22pm Jul 19, 2001 EST (#7240
I think it is fair to say that there are different points of
view , and even paradigm conflicts , around missile
defense. And they get in the way of hope, and safety, and progress.
Some of them aren't simple, and they aren't entirely logical.
It seems to me that some of them connect to an eloquent and
profound OpEd piece by Zell Miller, Senator from Georgia
The Democratic Party's Southern Problem http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/04/opinion/04MILL.html
There are ideas and feelings in conflict, for a lot of reasons.
When there are conflicts in point of view, conflicts about ideas,
that get so extreme that they can be called paradigm
conflicts dangerous things can happen, and progress can break
It seems to me that we need to get to better and more peaceful
solutions than we have now, to avoid danger and ugliness, and to
make the future better, and that finding ways past paradigm conflict
is an important part of that, because the "show stoppers" so often
happen when paradigm conflicts stop people from getting right
answers. Dawn Riley have done a lot of work on paradigm conflict,
and I organized some citations to that work in MD6012-3 rshowalter
6/25/01 4:04pm . . . almarst liked these references.
#307 of Paradigm Shift .... whose getting there? is the main
one. It talks about the need for checking, and the need for umpires.
Other references are cited -- perhaps, to some tastes, too many
words, but on a subject that Dawn Riley and I have worked hard
The need for third parties -- for different views -- is an
essential human need - - something being discussed at the G-8
New York Times on the Web Forums Science