New York Times on the Web Forums
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
(159 previous messages)
- 03:21pm Mar 3, 2002 EST (#160
Some of the support for local military expenditure is fiece -
supported by people who really need the money -- or have been poor
recently. The American South includes, and has included, a great
deal of real want, and backwardness and deprivation. Some is quite
vividly described by a Timesman -- Rick Bragg, in his beautiful
All Over But the Shoutin' . The importance of military bases
and contrats, for the constituents and contributors of many
represenatives and Senators is very great. Connections between
Southern politicians and the military have been powerful all this
century -- but grew enormously during the Cold War. The Cold War was
a very good thing, economically, for the American south.
With the need to justify military expenditure comes a support for
warlike, often very narrow ideas -- for instance thos expressed
about Europeans in FLYING INTO TURBULENCE by Peter Martin http://www.intellnet.org/news/articles/peter.martin.flying.into.turbulence.html
In addition, the pursuit on interests, and ideas congruent with
interests, can be played roughly... In Virginia, Young
Conservatives Learn How to Develop and Use Their Political
Voices by BLAINE HARDEN http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/11/politics/11CONS.html
The political connection between the US military and politics --
what many call the "iron triangle" consisting of the military, the
military contactors, and congress -- can be enormously powerful --
Clinton said that, when it came to missile defense, he was up
against the "iron triangle" and could only do so much.
Americans, and people in other nations, need to be clearer about
how this "iron triangle" works.
Though the interests of the "iron triangle" may be
understandable, but they are not identical with the interests
of the United States as a country. If they operationally seem to
be the same, that's cause for concern, for both America and the rest
of the world.
- 03:34pm Mar 3, 2002 EST (#161
For happy endings, people need to know how the story has gone.
And what happy ending might look like.
How a Story is Shaped http://www.fortunecity.com/lavendar/ducksoup/555/storyshape.html
offers a pattern - - how can the story be set out -- to a happy
The stages are :
Status Quo . . .
Initial Problem . . .
Exposition . . .
Complications . . .
Crisis . . .
Climax boom, crash -- .
Denouement . . .
Description of New Status Quo . . .
New Status Quo
We especially want to avoid a "Climax, boom, crash" that ends the
world . . .
- 04:11pm Mar 3, 2002 EST (#162
The "military industrial complex"
May be outdated.
Today its a "military-industrial-political" compleax.
There reasons are:
1. Growing dependence of US economy at large on the foreign
traid. The interests are not just limited to the arms-production.
Its more and more the politico-economical influence, vast markets,
cheap labor and natural resources - the OIL in particular. There was
a truth, as cinical as it is, in T. Friedman's words for the
dependency between MacDonald Duglas and McDonald.
2. The political process become more and more expensive by
relying primerely on the TV media 30 sec. shots. The $ plays ever
greater role in the voting results. The $ comes from the big
international corporations directly affected by the US foreign
3. As US military-economical power grew disproportionally and the
need for unified front against Soviets diapeared - the constrains by
aliases came to be just a background noise.
4. And finaly, the "human factor". The US President's power at
home is very limited. While left olmost unchecked and unrestrained
abroad, except by US alias. Which became less and less strategically
importand. So you get a small guy with overgrown EGO came to the top
of the World's power just to find out how limited what he can do at
home and how "creative" can he be abroad to live a desired "legacy".
The PEACEFUL remedy may be only in a consolidated power of
foreign nations. Or accepted domination of US.
The non-peaceful ASSIMETRIC response already discussed here, is
New York Times on the Web Forums