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
(265 previous messages)
- 03:45am Mar 8, 2002 EST (#266
both sides: 1-6 ... makes 'both' a hexagon !
Africa .. isn't that figure on the low side ?
- 07:33am Mar 8, 2002 EST (#267
You don't have to agree with Mazza's numbers to see his basic
Are people stumped yet?
Look how easy it was for Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Kim Il
Jung, and many other "warm perceptive human beings" to organize
large groups of creative, cooperative, problem-solving feeling
people for mass killing.
Look how easy it is today.
Look how developed, effective, and widely available the tools for
killing are - - and think of all the human effort, passion,
dedication, and disciplined organization that made them that way.
We're dealing with something that is deeply natural - - - at the
human socio-technical level. Natural as disease is natural at the
individual organic (and social and ecological level).
There are copious numbers of examples of horror - plenty of good
reasons for moral and emotional feelings about war. - - But if
prayer and efforts at "communication" were capable of eliminating
the bloodletting - - without more -- it would have happened long
If people were as rational and organized about fighting the
plague of war as they've been about fighting plague (or cancer --
war has many analogies to cancer) there would be a lot more hope.
Missile defense, given the technical facts and experience --
whatever your sense of "reasonable motivations" -- is deeply
irrational because it has no reasonable chance of working. But it is
part of a number of other patterns that are deeply irrational, too.
A lot of those patterns have a certain grim familiy resemblance.
- 01:56pm Mar 8, 2002 EST (#268
I don't know where the numbers came from and what they represent.
The point is not in numbers, however importand.
Unlike you, I am NOT in a business of defending ANY criminals.
This is a kind of "patriotism" which makes me to vomit.
- 02:07pm Mar 8, 2002 EST (#269
What I am against is to find a criminal in a self-proclamed
position of a POLICEMAN, PROSECUTER and JUDGE. Pretending of
posession of ultimate truth and wisdom for all. While actively
seeking its own interests.
- 03:07pm Mar 8, 2002 EST (#270
The 'Separation of Powers' was seen early in the piece - by the
French when looking at political stability in England - as being a
Separation of Powers
Understanding that a government's role is to protect
individual rights, but acknowledging that governments have
historically been the major violators of these rights, a number of
measures have been derived to reduce this likelihood. The concept
of Separation of Powers is one such measure.
The premise behind the Separation of Powers is that when a
single person or group has a large amount of power, they can
become dangerous to citizens. The Separation of Power is a method
of removing the amount of power in any group's hands, making it
more difficult to abuse.
The US government has a partial Separation of Powers. It
distinguishes between three groups. The Executive, the
Legislative, and the Judicial. They are distinguished by the kind
of power they wield. The Legislative branch has the ability to
enact laws. The Executive branch has the ability to see those laws
enforced. The Judicial branch has the ability to decide the guilt
of a party, allowing punishment.
If a single group shared all three powers, they would have
unlimited power. They could specify any law, arresting the
'criminal', and then decide that they are guilty. Through the
Separation of Powers, though, no group can have more than one of
these powers. Only through the combined use of all three can the
government use force. By requiring the consent of all three
branches, it increases the likelihood that the government will not
initiate violent force.
There are many different ways to separate the powers of a
government. The US, for instance, requires those that declare war
to be different from those that execute the war. Only by combining
the two can a war be declared. Also, the Legislative branch is
further broken into two, each with separate responsibilities and
powers. By any number of possible separations, a government can be
made safer for its citizens. http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Index.html?http://Separation
of Powers http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/books/separation.html
- 04:19pm Mar 8, 2002 EST (#271
"The US, for instance, requires those that declare war to be
different from those that execute the war."
The US presidents found it pretty easy to proceed with military
attack on other nations:
1. They just lable it as a "military action" and not a war.
2. The legislators and the media are intimidated being labled as
unpatriotic once the fire starts.
3. The Supreme Court have never hold a President accountable for
any military actions. By the law, the President has up to 60 days
after the war begins to ask the Congress for approval. Any guess
just how many people can the US military machine kill in 60 days?
- 04:36pm Mar 8, 2002 EST (#272
"Technology has always found its greatest consumer in a
nation's war and defense efforts."
The generals just like to get and play with a new toys.
The Presidents just like to see their generals happy and
successful in leaving their marks on the Planet nowdays called a
The business just gets a double windfall - for producing the
bombs and for rebulding the damage. That's the greates innnovation.
The Media just like to entertain the audience showing the marvels
of high-tech weaponary.
The audience gets a "real-life" episodes of the "survival".
The pundits get the best opportunity to engage in a race for
extremism and jingoism.
Who can ask for anything more?
New York Times on the Web Forums Science
Enter your response, then click the POST MY MESSAGE
See the quick-edit
help for more information.