New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

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.

lchic - 03:45am Mar 8, 2002 EST (#266 of 272)

both sides: 1-6 ... makes 'both' a hexagon !

Africa .. isn't that figure on the low side ?

rshow55 - 07:33am Mar 8, 2002 EST (#267 of 272)

You don't have to agree with Mazza's numbers to see his basic point.

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 before now.

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.

almarst-2001 - 01:56pm Mar 8, 2002 EST (#268 of 272)

mazza,

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.

almarst-2001 - 02:07pm Mar 8, 2002 EST (#269 of 272)

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.

lchic - 03:07pm Mar 8, 2002 EST (#270 of 272)

The 'Separation of Powers' was seen early in the piece - by the French when looking at political stability in England - as being a necessity.

____________

_{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

International: http://www.acs.ohio-state.edu/units/law/CLPSS/SepofPowers.htm

almarst-2001 - 04:19pm Mar 8, 2002 EST (#271 of 272)

"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?

almarst-2001 - 04:36pm Mar 8, 2002 EST (#272 of 272)

"Technology has always found its greatest consumer in a nation's war and defense efforts."

Quite right.

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 "legacy".

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 Missile Defense