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
(512 previous messages)
- 10:51pm Mar 13, 2002 EST (#513
Casablanca is common ground, something culturally literate
Americans know -- and that people the whole world over understand,
at the level of sympathy, and intellectually, too. I used the movie
as a point of departure in PSYCHWAR, CASABLANCA, AND TERROR ,
which tells a key story about the Cold War, interesting to American,
Russians, and others. http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/0
Especially the core story part, from posting 13 http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/12
to posting 23 http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/22
There is a comment in #26 that I feel some may find interesting, as
A fairly compact ongoing summary of this thread from September
25, 2000 to date, which is too large for easy reading, but not for
sampling, is set out with many links in Psychwar, Casablanca, and
Terror -- from #151 on... http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/159
It involves many links that no longer work, but a good deal of
information on what has happened on this thread, as well.
PSYCHWAR, CASABLANCA, AND TERROR sets out basic mechanisms
of how psychological injury happens. It deals with patterns of
psychological warfare that are still ongoing -- where lies are
weapons. A key point is how psychologically injurious, and
devastating, the psychological injury associated with deception can
The lies of "missile defense" persist because they are part of
a tradition of psychological warfare - - and in psychological
warfare, mistakes aren't corrected so that mutual cooperation and
good decisions can occur. Lies are defended, so that progress and
good decisions can be prevented. In that defense, diversion,
distraction, and avoidance of fundamentals are the watchwords.
You'd think that the information in today's Advertorial http://www.tompaine.com/op_ads/opad.cfm/ID/5241
would destroy "Star Wars." You'd think that the information in this
thread, and the responses of MD system supporters would destroy
"Star Wars." But it isn't going to happen without some more force
behind it. If world leaders decided they wanted answers clear enough
-- clear enough to work in a jury trial - they could get them. And
clarity, and weight at that level is what is warranted and needed
- 10:56pm Mar 13, 2002 EST (#514
"Can Nuclear war ever be labelled 'just' "
Hardly ever. But how many just wars - the wars which started for
the just cause - can you countin the history of civilization, other
then the rebellion against oppressor or self-defence? Very fiew
indeed. Ironically, the recent two which come to my mind are those
by the Germany and Japan against the US. Because it was the US naval
blocade of Japan in defence of a British Empire and support for the
US expansion in Indo-China and undisclosed attacks against German
Navy fighting the Britain in the Atlantic that triggered the War.
- 11:14pm Mar 13, 2002 EST (#515
Interesting to hear of 'the other side of the coin' with respect
to the origins of the Wars.
Interesting repeat BBC docco on Putin .. not too far into
learning to be a leader
learning that people aren't just a
Needing to put the artistic and literary culture 'on
A need to produce NEW music (without negative historical
linkages) to march to
A need to 'sell' the reform vision to
A need for an improved deal for Chetneya
- 11:23pm Mar 13, 2002 EST (#516
3/13/02 10:56pm ... Our definitions of "just" are different.
That doesn't mean we can't live in peace. Our definitions aren't
If we are both "reading off the same page" - - we can agree on a
great deal that matters.
My sense of reasonable scorekeeping matches Kristof's in A
merciful war http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/01/opinion/01KRIS.html
Weapons of mass destruction (all of them) should be ruled out, in
practical terms, even with very imperfect scorekeeping -- if there
is decency in scorekeeping at all.
We need to move toward situations that reduce human risk
-- and preserve the world.
3/5/02 10:11am deals with excellent points almarst
made last year.
It can't possibly make any sense to support a "missile defense"
program that acts to "validate" nuclear weapons, and that cannot
possibly work technically.
- 11:25pm Mar 13, 2002 EST (#517
'The other side of the coin' with respect to NATO keeps airing on
this thread. Set up with a fanfare .. when did it start to be seen
to move away from it's supposed role ? The web site, at least, is
good .. http://www.nato.int/home.htm
- 11:36pm Mar 13, 2002 EST (#518
"A merciful war" ... A "humanitarian" bombing ... A Colateral
Are you familiar with Karamazov's Brathers of Dostoevsky? There
was a phrase which significantly shaped my vision and feelings.
One of the brother's I think ask the other: "If you would know
that the happiness of the World requires you to kill a single
innocent child - would you do so?" And the answer was: "How can the
happiness of humanity be acheved by commiting such crime?
If it would be up to me, I would reject anyone from any public
affecting power position including police and the army, who could
accept such a proposition.
New York Times on the Web Forums