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?
(7441 previous messages)
- 03:12am Jul 26, 2001 EST (#7442
Maslow featured here in military quality of life.
Would military quality of life be improved if people in the
services contributed to the positive aspects of world development.
Worked to get the essential services that support life to poor
communites at affordable costs. Wouldn't these guys gain a great
deal of satisfaction? The Australian Army on their six month
$2billion expedition to East Timor, gained a great deal of personal
- 03:27am Jul 26, 2001 EST (#7443
Reshaping the military - USA see
- 03:30am Jul 26, 2001 EST (#7444
Americans want to help 'christian' people in this desperate country.
- 03:45am Jul 26, 2001 EST (#7445
Alex: above underlines your point re OIL
Money is the Root of all evil.
Gold is money, money buys arms. The wealth of nations such
as the Sudan above is being squandered on arms - rather than being
used to assist the growth and development of the population -
towards an economic social future.
- 04:28am Jul 26, 2001 EST (#7446
The world is watching, and to a very large extent the effective
power (which, very often, is the power to persuade) of the
United States and Russia , and other nations
concerned, is going to depend on responsible conduct, in terms of
needs that the world feels, and understands.
There may be a place for "private diplomacy" -- but in key and
inescapable ways, this is happening in public.
By and large, people deal with people they are comfortable with
-- people who are more trusted, along the continuum of trust and
distrust within which real people live -- people who are
"trustworthy" -- when they check -- in enough ways, often enough,
that interaction feels safe, and communication feels clear enough
that they are willing to "take a chance" on cooperation.
In business, that's called "good will." Building a brand
is, essentially, about building trust, and a pattern of psychology
where people stop checking, and just go with one kind of
relationship - without considering others.
- 05:09am Jul 26, 2001 EST (#7447
It seems sensible to modify MD2392 rshowalter
4/18/01 10:24pm here:
It seems to me that Russia needs, and needs intensely,
something that America has -- a sense of common culture that makes
the society, when faced with a challenge, work as a coordinated and
competent "team". There is more hope for that, in the
international community, than there has been in two decades, and the
willingness to trust Russia's competence, to give her a chance, is
rising fast, among both friends and old enemies who are not yet
friends, but who are casting around for new ways of interacting.
It seems to me that Russia needs to understand, and respect, some
usages that often work well in other countries -- usages that often
work well in the United States, and though I'm sure Putin knows
them, I'm repeating them, in the hope that they may be remembered.
Let me tell a personal story, about a time when some of these
lessons were taught to me.
Years ago, I had the good fortune to be invited to testify before
a Senate committee on technology - testifying on the uses of
mathematical modeling as one of a number of aids to judgement. And
after the testimony, I was nominated to a Office of Technology
Assessment committee on Innovation and Patent Policy -- a committee
that was influential in decisions that led to a Patent
Re-examination procedure, and the establishing of a Court of Patent
Appeals -- changes that made patents worth more than before.
Comment: Often, in diplomacy within groups, by
design and by tradition, committees and other groups are "packed"
to be ineffectual -- to provide a show of "consultation" without
its substance. Such committees, unless they can come together, are
less distinguished and less important than the
individuals who make them up. "Setting up a committee" of this
sort can be a way of avoiding action rather than producing it.
Anyway, as an OTA committee, we ran amok -- because, though we
were "packed" to represent conflicting interests, we agreed
completely on what we felt needed to be done. And so we decided to
go up to Capitol Hill, and talk to the responsible Senators,
Representatives, and staffers. This was an outrageous thing for us
to do, by some standards.
The head of OTA came in to talk to us, and try to dissuade us.
(We paid careful attention to him, but we went ahead.)
Here is what he said:
" In this town, some think that it is all right
to do anything that isn't specifically prohibited. But it isn't
that easy. There is one standard, one test, that has to apply, to
be effective in this town. You have to ask, of whatever you're
going to do . . . .
" What would this look like, and how would it
be judged, if it was written up, in detail, in THE NEW YORK
TIMES ? ( I noticed that, though we were in DC, the TIMES was
the paper chosen.)
The man went on to emphasize that the point wasn't that our
doings would be reported in the paper. The point was that there were
community standards, about what was good function, and what wasn't,
on which people with enough literacy and stature to be interested in
reading the TIMES would agree. And these community standards made
for orderly and effecive behavior, and were of compelling practical
and moral force.
New York Times on the Web Forums Science