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
(167 previous messages)
- 06:23pm Mar 3, 2002 EST (#168
I think, yes. Unless the President's power and US foreign policy
comes to public scruteny. Which I see no ways of coming. Why would a
public be interested in results of US foreign policy? What are the
stakes? Unless some terrible disuster abroad will cause such a
calamity or loss at home that it will cause a dramatic change in the
Unfortunatly, it may well be, the PAIN is the most effective in
not the only LEARNING TOOL.
- 06:37pm Mar 3, 2002 EST (#169
Public scrutiny is becoming a more and more feasible goal.
Why would a public be interested in results of US
What are the stakes?
These things have to be explained.
If some real world leaders wanted to make progress here -- it
would happen pretty directly.
We talked, last year, about things that would be quite practical
-- if world leaders actually wanted some things sorted out.
- 06:48pm Mar 3, 2002 EST (#170
Just a thought for a happy ending, based on the pattern in How
a Story is Shaped http://www.fortunecity.com/lavendar/ducksoup/555/storyshape.html
Status Quo . . .
Initial Problem . . .
Exposition . . .
Complications . . .
Crisis . . . A superpower out of hand
- - with plenty of muddle and danger.
Climax boom, crash -- . . . A few world leaders say, in
public, "this is an intolerable mess -- there are muddles here -- we
want the key facts and relations sorted out -- staffed to closure --
beyond question . . ."
to be continued .
Denouement . . .
Description of New Status Quo . . .
I think some pretty satisfactory resolutions would occur, pretty
naturally, once there was enough "news value" for public scrutiny --
along with formats that were able to handle the logical problems
- 06:52pm Mar 3, 2002 EST (#171
There would have to be public interest that could be sustained --
and one thing that requires is patterns where people who want to be
interested can see things in enough coordination, together, to draw
Things have to be presented in ways people can actually
understand. And when there are inconsistencies - - there have to be
ways of showing them, and showing evidence that people can
understand, regarding those inconsistencies.
With good enough illustrations that key points can be "seen" in
the literal, visual sense.
A central point is that things have to "match up" that are now
fragmented -- because too seperated in space and time.
Often, fragmented because there are people motivated to keep them
fragmented -- and procedures and "traditions" that keep them
Ways of misinforming and muddling public opinion that Thomas
Jefferson and the other founding fathers never dreamed of have
become powerful. Mostly they rest on techniques of fragmentation -
burying information in distacting detail, and isolating people.
. Hitler went unchecked.
We have to learn to do better now. We can.
We know a lot about how to do it now . . . and have seen a
lot that could be modified to be workable . . seen it here.
- 07:05pm Mar 3, 2002 EST (#172
What drives most of the World Leaders:
1. Personal EGO and desire to be loved, admired and elected again
- primerely in so called Democtatic societies.
2. Ideology - primerely in so called non-Democratic societies.
3. Patriotism/Nazionalism - quite universally. But undermines the
What is at stakes to stand-up against a world dominating power?
1. Economic, political and even military pressure.
2. Direct bribary, refusing of wich harts their personal
3. Nation-wide bribary (like seen in Serbia).
4. Fear to be left along by closed-door deals between superpower
and other coalition powers - "Divide and Conquer".
As I see it, only the common ideology can bring a sustanable
efectively counteracting coalition. Or the common wide-spread fear
Which lets the US to flexibly select a partner for a mission just
to be declared a foe later on. As was a case with Iraq and
Afganistan. As is now with Iran. As wery likely will be with many
- 07:08pm Mar 3, 2002 EST (#173
"With good enough illustrations that key points can be
For the vast majority, the eyes are the mass media. Which, in my
view, is at best inefficient and, most likely, purely self-serving
- 07:17pm Mar 3, 2002 EST (#174
I have a very little expectations for the things to turn better
untill I see a change in the ways of mass-media. Which, if extends
some criticizm, does so on a partisan way. When Clinton admin.
commited its war crimes, the "liberal" wing of media was quite
supportive. while the conservative, save Pat Bucanan, complained his
pinches are just too week. Now, with Bush, they seem to act
Where are the PRINCIPLES, the IDEAS? How many anti-war activists
have you seen or hear on the radio or TV?
New York Times on the Web Forums