![[F]](../_images/site.gif) 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
Thursday.
 
  (131 previous messages)
almarst-2001
- 07:07pm Mar 2, 2002 EST (#132
of 153)
At the end of a tough New York Times piece, titled "Office of
Strategic Mendacity," columnist Maureen Dowd applied an oily salve
to the PR wounds she'd just inflicted. "Our cause is just," she
concluded. "So why not just tell the truth?"
Why not just tell the truth? Because -- whether the issue is
support for human-rights abusers or civilian deaths courtesy of U.S.
taxpayers -- "the truth" would often indicate that the Pentagon's
cause is not just. That's why not. - http://www.fair.org/media-beat/020228.html
rshow55
- 07:13pm Mar 2, 2002 EST (#133
of 153) 
But notice this -- after Dowd's piece, and some other pieces by
others at the NYT and elsewhere -- on a story the NYT broke and led
-- the "office of strategic mendacity" idea was abandoned.
Not everything in the world one might hope for. But it was
something substantial.
The TIMES often achieves substantial things -- and tact helps.
The more serious and emotion-laden an issue is - the more tact may
be needed.
almarst-2001
- 07:18pm Mar 2, 2002 EST (#134
of 153)
"idea was abandoned"
Its hard to know. And even harder to understand why would they
need it in a first place, except to make sure the lies are well
coordinated, controlled, and do never contradict. Just a "good
business practice". The implication is - the propaganda and
misinformation will be just a little bit harder to maintain ... or
assign it to the less visible department the Pentagon has plenty of.
almarst-2001
- 07:21pm Mar 2, 2002 EST (#135
of 153)
How often do you remember the Time questioning the Pentagon
"facts" or "conclusions"? It is so unpatriotic... and quite
unprofitable.
rshow55
- 07:25pm Mar 2, 2002 EST (#136
of 153)
Within the format of the news, as that format now is - - the
TIMES stands up for the truth as it sees it. But the format very
often weakens and diffuses the message.
For getting things done, indignation is sometimes useful -- but
often not.
rshow55
- 07:38pm Mar 2, 2002 EST (#137
of 153)
I'm out for a while -- won't post much until tomorrow. These
postings are on my mind. If some technical facts about
missile defense were widely understood , I think a number of
things might sort out well.
MD84 rshow55
3/2/02 10:52am . . . MD85 almarst-2001
3/2/02 11:01am
MD86 rshow55
3/2/02 11:17am ... MD87 rshow55
3/2/02 11:47am
If some leaders of major countries actually encouraged some
fact-finding -- and some discussions to closure in public -- before
umpires -- I think a great deal could be done. It would have to rise
to a level that could be called "news." And the countries involved
might have to face some awkward facts, as well.
One very clear place to start would be missile defense, where the
disparity between any reasonable US national interest and the
interest of the military-industrial complex is particularly blatant
and clear.
Stories are needed, that link to facts, but also touch minds. One
story keeps coming to my mind. The story of "The Emperor's New
Clothes." Somehow, though it is obvious, people don't "see" that the
interest of the military-industrial complex, and the interest of the
American nation, are different. And the moral claims of the entities
are different. People need to see and feel that difference. NATO,
for example, has reason to have some bonds of loyalty to the United
States as a nation. Not, reasonably, or morally, to a
"military-industrial complex" with its own agenda.
almarst-2001
- 08:22pm Mar 2, 2002 EST (#138
of 153)
CIVILIAN OBJECTS WERE NATO'S MAIN TARGETS - http://english.pravda.ru/main/2002/03/02/26749.html
It makes a good reading to cover the whole article.
rshow55
- 08:37pm Mar 2, 2002 EST (#139
of 153)
almarst-2001
3/2/02 8:22pm I'm interested that there is a forum to discuss
the article, and related articles, at the end. That's good for
feedback. Out for tonight.
lchic
- 03:43am Mar 3, 2002 EST (#140
of 153)
The NIXON tapes show civillians to be the target .. the peak
bombing time was 4-5pm when children and workers were targeted!
11,000 dead but only 700 weapons captured !
lchic
- 08:26am Mar 3, 2002 EST (#141
of 153)
 (12
following messages)
   
New York Times on the Web Forums
Science
Missile Defense
| 
