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
(405 previous messages)
- 01:08pm Mar 12, 2002 EST (#406
The question of feasibility is important.
And if there is feasibilty to a "certain degree" magnitudes
matter very much.
We're talking about a very serious situation here . . .
people are paying attention, and the rather careful folks who write
editorials for the TIMES were pretty emphatic today on stakes
closely related to these questions ... America as Nuclear
Was the uncovering of the Enron situation a "predictable
situation?" At the start, it looked like enronation would
triumph -- after all, obfuscation and lies carried that organization
a very long way.
Then things changed.
If people in Europe, Russia, China, and the United States were
clear about the extent of the frauds so far - - and the
issues could be made clear - - it could be important.
If major leaders -- people who could make news, rather than just
cover it - asked that the issues be clarified, they would be.
Patterns that could clarify a great deal have been discussed here
before. Would people pay attention? If some power was brought to
bear -- many likely would.
- 01:15pm Mar 12, 2002 EST (#407
There are limits to how completely people can run away
from questions about details. MD393 rshow55
Trials do often get right answers - - - though travesties like
the OJ trial do happen sometimes.
It takes trouble and money to present technical evidence and
argument at the level required in a trial -- the level usually
needed for real persuasion. But it can be done, and well done. It
could be done on the internet.
People with power would have to want it done.
- 01:28pm Mar 12, 2002 EST (#408
There's the patch and mend strategy of continually adjusting a
There's the dump and throw out the old to take on a completely
NEW strategy or policy.
Were there to be an international agreement that nuclear weapons
were 'not on' to the point of them being 'ousted' .. then NEW
international strategies would have to be introduced.
Yesterday Military was about war
Tomorrow let it be about
peaceful assistance and development
Yesterday the UN was a toothless monkey
Tomorrow let it play
a 'fuller' role
Yesterday war and 'hero' were mystically related
peace and 'hero' replace this in thinking.
- 01:42pm Mar 12, 2002 EST (#409
Enough people are concerned enough that they may be willing to
face human fighting and threat patterns -- and wars -- as the
public health problems they are.
We need to be "connecting the dots" much more carefully -- and
with our hearts, minds, and emotions engaged.
Krstof: Cicero was wrong. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/12/opinion/12KRIS.html
War is a behavioral pattern -- very natural to people -- that
ought to be considered clinically.
Like cancer, and like death -- it is natural - and needs to be
- 02:36pm Mar 12, 2002 EST (#410
... whenever I write a mushy column about sending medicine
abroad as well as soldiers, building bridges instead of just
bombing them, I get reproaches from readers who insist that we
should worry not about being liked, but about being feared .. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/12/opinion/12KRIS.html
The US is failing to 'market' to the people the advantages
of having roughly equivalent nations in the second tier .. those who
have buying power for more advanced goods --- which in turn provide
JOBS for US workers.
A holistic approach to 'thinking' should be implemented.
- 02:53pm Mar 12, 2002 EST (#411
The US needs to learn how to make peace . As of now, we
don't know how - - and the results have been grisly -- http://www.nctimes.com/news/2002/20020310/60236.html
- 03:01pm Mar 12, 2002 EST (#412
It is very easy -- if you ask people to change in ways that they
cannot - or if you threaten them excessively - in ways that don't
give them an out - to get them to fight to the death. As individuals
and as groups.
Maybe, in some circumstances, such things are necessary.
But to be avoided, unless you're willing to elicit "fight
to the death" responses. How often do we want to do that?
The standard US military approach of "maximum threat" doesn't
work -- it is a recipe for endless war - - and endless, escalating
risk to Americans.
Cicero was wrong - in the Roman context -- and under the
circumstances of today -- much more wrong - - both practically and
- 03:12pm Mar 12, 2002 EST (#413
Gee, how do you guys manage to "go on" writing articles like that
in a place where Fox and NBC reigns suprerme ??
New York Times on the Web Forums