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
(468 previous messages)
- 05:46pm Mar 13, 2002 EST (#469
More from a year ago:
rshowalter - 01:24pm Mar 12, 2001 EST (#953 of 956) Robert
Very interesting !
It seems to me that, if FACTS were established, the US military
rationale would be indefensible. It would have to change.
Or, if the position actually was coherent, and something that
could stand the light of day, other people might come to understand
it, so we'd all be safer.
I believe that if the American people actually understood that
Russia and China actually are afraid of, and in effect, being
threatend by, first strikes, they'd put a stop to it.
I don't think you're looking at a coherent policy of the American
people, or of the American government that exists in public, either.
You're looking at the products of a scared, greedy, very old,
corrupt conspiracy that needs, not only for the outside world's
sake, but for America's sake, to be uncovered.
It seems to me that it should be entirely practical to do this,
in reasonably short order. I've got a suggestion about half drafted
-- only a "thought experiment" -- but I do believe that it might
suggest the elements of a solution to the basic problem -- which is
uncovering hidden facts. The key point of the plan is basic. It is
openness, and the presence of effective umpiring mechanisms,
to show, to all reasonable people, what the facts are.
almarstel2001 - 01:28pm Mar 12, 2001 EST (#954 of 956)
"Actually, there is some very funny and annoing aspect of the
America's Cold War "victory" - there is a very little "treasure"
found. Akin what may feel an all importand triumphant idealistic
General, coming back to his country after defeating distant enemies,
happily proclaimnig that there is no more enemies from now on, just
to discover that in this case, no one needs him any more. His
importance diminished, his role and the future in fluke. The
"friends" are already dealing with who used to be enemy for their
selfish benefit and even, his wife alrady left him during his
"The pitty thing, once the job is declared successfully
complete, the layoff may be just around the corner;)"
- 05:48pm Mar 13, 2002 EST (#470
Seems that morally, philosophically and intellectually the US
isn't up and functioning -- must be the SteelChick equivalent of
'egg bound' -- the US has reached an impasse -- suffering a massive
constipational blockage with respect to 'ideas' on Tomorrow's World.
- 05:54pm Mar 13, 2002 EST (#471
- 05:55pm Mar 13, 2002 EST (#472
We need to get some facts straight, and collected in space
and time clearly enough so that some things can be made clear -- we
need to "connect some more dots" - - to make a more prosperous and
peaceful world possible, and to control some blazing injustices and
uglinesses that almarst refers to.
We talked about doing something like that last year - -
- 05:58pm Mar 13, 2002 EST (#473
From last year - - something like this might be more
doable now than before:
rshowalter - 02:17pm Mar 12, 2001 EST (#956 of 956) Robert
It seems that nobody has anwers to our most basic questions about
nuclear weapons, then the world needs them.
Answers can be FORCED -- and this is especially true with
the new information technologies.
Particularly in a case like this, where the stakes are such that
right answers are morally forcing.
And from answers, actions should flow.
I have two things in mind.
Establishing FACTS beyond reasonable doubt - and explaining
these facts very broadly.
Crafting a fully workable, fully complete, fully explained
"draft treaty proposal" for nuclear disarmament and a more
militarily stable world. Such drafting would, at the least, make for
stunningly good journalism -- that could be widely syndicated among
papers. Useful as that would be, I think the drafting would serve a
much more useful purpose. That purpose would be actually getting the
points that need to be worked out for nuclear disarmament set out
coherently - - to a level where closure actually occurs. That would
involve a great deal of staff work done coherently, quickly, and in
I wonder how much might be done IN PUBLIC --- say if some Moscow
Times staff, and people from a couple of US papers, some Guardian
staff, and people from some interested governments, started an OPEN
With all the government involvement possible, from all the
nations concerned, and with "shadow" governments set up when the
government in power did not participate.
. For instance, a "shadow US government" for this
purpose might have an ex President, an ex Secretary of State, ex
head of the CIA, and several former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff, in addition to other distinguished people.
If this involved "secret talks" it would be unworkable. But if
everything was open, it would be workable.
I'm continuing to write about details, but this is
the basic idea I have. I think it would work, especially if people
worked on the basis of the distrust that we actually have in these
matters, rather than attempt to make practical arrangements on the
fiction of trust. rshowalt 9/25/00 7:32am
New York Times on the Web Forums