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
(704 previous messages)
- 06:41am Mar 20, 2002 EST (#705
boondoggle : -
I'm wonder how the Republicans are going to try to cover their
as*ses on this one. The anti-ICBM system has been a boondoggle and
pipe-dream from the start, and it's continued funding has tested
Clinton's pretence of being a liberal or progressive. He must kill
the program now, but it would surprise me if he didn't. Money
would be better spent developing a Zeppelin fleet. Keep up the
good work, Jerry
A zeppelin fleet would probably be more effective, as there
would be a better chance of collision with the incoming missile
due to the zeppelin's larger size. For more details, read here
about the boondoggle. http://www.commondreams.org/views/051100-101.htm
We assessed the full missile defense system the United
States is planning - not just the first phase planned for 2005 -
and assumed only that it is constrained by the laws of physics.
- 06:46am Mar 20, 2002 EST (#706
On visiting Troop Eight, the all-New York State-group, we were
accepted into the "Order of the Boondoggle." We felt
greatly honored as a boondoggle, a braided leather lanyard the
famous product of the Rochester Scouts—was placed around our necks
and we were greeted with eardrum-splitting yells. We were then
released and permitted to see the camp with its clever arrangement
of bakeshell tents and an ingenious shower-bath. http://www.pinetreeweb.com/1933-wj4-sjb-03.htm
- 06:51am Mar 20, 2002 EST (#707
ti: To the Nuclear Lighthouse
Nuclear weapons are irrational devices. They were
rationalized and accepted as a desperate measure in the face of
circumstances that were unimaginable. Now as the world evolves
rapidly, I think that the vast majority of people on the face of
the earth will endorse the proposition that such weapons have no
place among us. -GEN. GEORGE LEE BUTLER
Strategic Air Command
- 07:42am Mar 20, 2002 EST (#708
There has to be a fight - with "real chips" and "real injuries"
-- to get arguments well set out, thought out, and clear, from
Butler and many others listened to and acted on.
There has to be a fight. People have to stand. Decisions have to
be come to.
It doesn't have to be a nuclear exchange - or any military
But it will have to take some force.
And "Set 'em up, so they cannot run away" will be a
crucial part of it.
Since the very first day I've been on this thread I've been
working to set up fights --getting them set up -- and finding that,
lacking force - there would be no decisions - so patterns of ideas
have been "set aside for further use" -- until thre is a way
to get the relevant folks "pinned down" for treatment which
Aristotle would approve of.
The question isn't -- are we involved with fights? It is: What
fights - - to what ends, and with what conventions and limits?
We can't run away - and avoid fights. If we do, we are implicitly
choosing the fights we'll be involved in -- and choosing to lose
We're in a situation where one more eloquent and witty column by
Dowd or Friedman isn't going to make a decisive difference -- though
it may help set up conditions. There has to be a fight -- where the
other side cannot run away.
- 08:36am Mar 20, 2002 EST (#709
Last July 4th, lchic and I worked very hard - - - it was an
interesting time on this board. On July 8, Serge Schmemann wrote a
wonderful Week in Review piece:
WORD FOR WORD / The Long Gray Line For
Tomorrow's Army, Cadets Full of Questions by SERGE SCHMEMANN
I found a lead in quote moving, and very relevant to
circumstances at the time, and circumstances today. It seems to me
that there needs to be a fight about matters of proportion -- and
about things that have been done -- and that the ethical
position in MacArthur's speech deserve careful considation ---
because they express the role of a class that is important, but that
needs to have a subordinated role. Here is MacArthur,
speaking to cadets.
" Your mission remains fixed, determined,
inviolable — it is to win our wars. All other public purposes will
find others for their accomplishment. Yours is the profession of
arms — the will to win, the sure knowledge that in war there is no
substitute for victory, that the very obsession of your public
service must be duty, honor, country."
MacArthur spoke those words after he'd been relieved of command
by Truman -- for wanting to widen a war where he'd already ordered
the fire bombing of cities, and the destruction of dikes, that
killed more than 2 million Koreans in the North -- almost all of
Some reservations about MacArthur's position -- concern about its
subordination -- a subordination that, in a sense, MacArthur
assumes, were expressed in President Eisenhower's Farewell
Schememann reported that cadets wondered, as they must continue
to wonder, what MacArthur's words mean, and in what ways they should
and should not be followed today. We should, too.
MacArthur insisted on the importance of technically correct
answers - clearly transmitted and WE SHOULD, TOO.
We should also be concerned about a disproportion between
war-fighting and "all other public purposes."
The issue of subversion ought to be directly raised, it
seems to me.
The very worst things Eisenhower warned of have already happened.
New York Times on the Web Forums