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
(291 previous messages)
- 04:20pm Mar 9, 2002 EST (#292
3/9/02 4:05pm . . There are too many people who comfortably
become professional soldiers to call them "idiots." They are very
human. And many very smart. War is easy, and natural. It is peace
that is hard. As a species, we haven't learned enough about gaining
it, and maintaining it.
But the United States is a somewhat special, and dangerous case.
The US military-industrial complex is something rather recent in
American and world history- though it was already significantly
evolved by World War II. It advanced a great deal during the Truman
and Eisenhower administrations. Eisenhower became very concerned,
and warned against it in his FAREWELL ADDRESS of January 17, 1961 http://www.geocities.com/~newgeneration/ikefw.htm
The worst things Eisenhower warned about have happened, and have
established themselves deeply in our culture. And the world has to
ask questions - and get answers - and act on them.
- 04:28pm Mar 9, 2002 EST (#293
A point made before is that the 'wealth' of the US is in part
derived from 'the rest of the world' bringing to it advances for
patent and manufacture.
The human academic capital of the US, together with dollars to
exploit, give it the edge.
If the US fails to act responsibly, how can it when it may not
have a true democracy - separation of powers, then US needs
counterbalancing by Eurasia.
- 04:33pm Mar 9, 2002 EST (#294
"War is easy, and natural."
Did you try?
It may be true only for politicans who feel safe in their offices
to send someone else to kill and die.
As for professional army contigent, I feel very strongly about
what I said.
And I was drafted and served.
There are very fiew if at all, any "profession" I could dispise
more then army.
In case of US, I believe its particularely true. By many fold.
- 04:35pm Mar 9, 2002 EST (#295
"If the US fails to act responsibly .. US needs
counterbalancing by Eurasia"
The US need counterbalancing and deterrance BEFORE it
fails to act responsibly.
It will be too late after the case.
- 04:36pm Mar 9, 2002 EST (#296
3/9/02 4:15pm For you to express such concerns -- well, though I
agree - only so much can be done - - because there are times when
there has to be an association of ideas with POWER.
But if people with some political power, world leaders - wanted
to reduce the risks - to move in the direction of "taking fewer
chances" - - some good could be done.
Organizations like the International Physicians for the
Prevention of Nuclear War - which won a Nobel Peace Prize in
1984 - - are in disarray -- not knowing what to do. If somebody like
Putin, called them up and talked to them - a lot might be done.
Just a hypothetical, of course. But the point is - with so much,
so crazy, some of the instabilites involved with information could
be favorable - - but it would take help from people with some
- 04:43pm Mar 9, 2002 EST (#297
People don't see the evil of the silent nuclear threat.
They do see this physical surreal reality in vivid technicolour
via all senses (sight sound touch taste smell) :
"A man walked in and blew himself up. There are pieces of him
"The police are distancing people from the scene. It's the
most horrible thing I've ever seen."
- 04:51pm Mar 9, 2002 EST (#298
may be real, the thousends of nuclear devices pointing in all
directions by nuclear powers are even more real. Particularely when
coupled with a promise to use them quite freely.
As for the terrorists, I still think the real danger will come
from the bio-terrorism.
- 04:56pm Mar 9, 2002 EST (#299
Just made the point -- with a "hypothetical" -- that if a major
leader wanted to empower resistance to US policy - - it would be
There's plenty to be concerned about.
U.S. Nuclear Plan Sees New Weapons and New Targets by
MICHAEL R. GORDON http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/10/international/10NUKE.html
- 04:58pm Mar 9, 2002 EST (#300
3/9/02 4:43pm points out the key fact that it is important to
make the circumstances clear and vivid.
That takes work and resources.
- 05:13pm Mar 9, 2002 EST (#301
"U.S. Nuclear Plan Sees New Weapons and New Targets"
Are we witnessing the down of a "humanitarian" nuclear bombing?
New York Times on the Web Forums