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
(447 previous messages)
- 01:27pm Mar 13, 2002 EST (#448
Psychological terror together with
death via intention, a madman giving orders, or accident ... it's
really the same - but - MORE of it ... so those with NUKE-ability
are irresponsible, going 'backwards' and should be brought into
- 01:29pm Mar 13, 2002 EST (#449
There should be social and economic suasion -- from a number of
angles -- to bring both the N. Koreans and the United States
into line on this sort of thing.
Nukes are extermination weapons -- once used -- people and
peoples fight to the death. Rationality is adjourned. We have to do
better than that.
And if preemption has to be used - it should not be
- 01:31pm Mar 13, 2002 EST (#450
Backing away from fights -- and reasonably pre-emption, too, take
more complicated stances than those the administration
- 01:38pm Mar 13, 2002 EST (#451
It ought to be easy to get the N. Koreans sane enough (and
secure enough for valid reasons) to eliminate these terrible risks.
Or, if pre-emption was required, it ought to be possible to do so
on a non-nuclear and not very bloody basis.
But the solutions that can possibly work have to be complicated -
- they have to load information and logical systems -- even overload
them -- and the best ones have to appeal to beauty, and hope, and
not just fear - - and the administration is doing a lot of things
- 01:40pm Mar 13, 2002 EST (#452
On a personal level i suffered the trauma of a 'small' injury a
couple of days ago .. should be right in about a week. Evenso, a
minor trauma does give insights ... makes one think ... how do
people fare in situations where there are massive injuries ... where
rehabilitation is necessary .. how do people fare where there are
human losses .. where there are shortages of medical materials and
Transposing from individual trauma to world scale is barely
Raises the point --
Who are these people who could intervene
and politically assist where disputes turn nasty - but don't
Before unnecessary and irreparable damage occurs.
- 01:42pm Mar 13, 2002 EST (#453
The Koreans are but marginally well defended for simple
challenges. They are vulnerable, both as a culture and as a military
structure - to more complicated ones -- especially in mixes, quickly
switched, where to defend against one attack is to be helpless
against another -- with a lot of attacks possible.
We are stupid to get into such simple minded, brutal -
gruesomely immoral cycles of death. We can do better, and must.
And other nations ought to insist on it.
- 01:49pm Mar 13, 2002 EST (#454
We have to understand some basic things about how fights
work, for intervention to be very workable.
As of now, people don't know how to make peace very well.
We need much more clinical understanding of how escalatory fights
happen, and how they may be stopped.
We're dealing with the "cancer" of human socio-technical systems
-- and just as we can't prohibit cancer, we can't prohibit war. But
to the extent that we understand mechanisms, we can ameliorate, and
To reduce or eliminate cancer, we have to know how it works. The
same goes for war patterns.
From the logical point of view, it doesn't look so difficult to
do now. But emotions run high, we're talking about deeply emotional
and natural patterns - - and the difficulties of "paradigm conflict"
are very important.
Morality is very important - and so are institutions. But as of
now, we need more understanding, too.
And some pruderies don't work. Sometimes, fights do have to
happen. When they do, they should be under decent control, and have
reasonable, close to minimal costs.
And the ends shouldn't just set up the next fight.
- 01:56pm Mar 13, 2002 EST (#455
These costs are TOO HIGH -- and setting up the next fight happens
too often -- it surely happened in Korea . We have to do better than
this - - much better.
Washington has a love affair with terror by Robin Miller
" Let's examine our use of terror directed against
civilians to achieve political or military goals, beginning with
the atomic devastation of Japan. http://www.nctimes.com/news/2002/20020310/60236.html
- 02:04pm Mar 13, 2002 EST (#456
Mexican president, Vicente Fox is looking after his people
working in the US http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/13/politics/13AMNE.html
- humanitarian progress!
New York Times on the Web Forums