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
(906 previous messages)
- 03:40pm Mar 28, 2002 EST (#907
Bob Herbert did a superb, moving piece today:
Betraying Humanity http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/28/opinion/28HERB.html
. Herbert says something I think is profound, essential, and
" . . . ultimately the many tribes that inhabit this earth
are going to have to figure out a way to forge some workable
agreements on how we treat one another." From a distance,
considering the capabilities that people have, and how well they
often do, it is amazing that there is so much horror, ugliness,
ignorance, deception, and emotional and material poverty in the
world. Herbert says something basic, that I'll rephrase:
. As of now, the many tribes that inhabit the
world do not have workable agreements on how they
treat each other.
In part, we don't because we haven't yet understood some basic
facts and relations - that permit these agreements to be stated,
understood, fit to human needs, and accepted.
Herbert says that "We are in a state of affairs that is
outside politics and can't be solved by war."
At one level, that's right. But if we had the workable agreements
he speaks of -- that would improve some of our politics, and might
make the terror and inhumanity of war far, far less likely than it
It seems to me that "workable agreements" far better than the
ones we have now may be entirely practical -- and may now be well on
their way towards focus. The Middle East, ugly as it is, is offering
some reasons for hope.
If, in Herbert's words, "The sense of horror and helplessness
in the face of unrelenting madness is becoming overwhelming." .
. . people are paying attention, and doing some hard thinking.
I think almarst , while he is sympathetic to the losses
from terrorism, would feel strongly that American definitions of
what terror is are dangerously narrow.
- 03:42pm Mar 28, 2002 EST (#908
Feel free to substitute the MAD with a "credible deterrance" or
the "poson pill".
Leave the rest of my assumptions as they are.
And, please, add one more: If you think the rest of the World
will fall on its knees facing the New World Order designed for
Anglo-Saxon nation's domination - think again. I tend not to believe
the age of a New Anglo-Saxon Empire has come or will be accepted
without a fight. Its not just a question wof wether US will attack
Russia or China.
It is ultimatly a question wether this World is ready for
neo-colonial-like domination. And in a matter of just a dosen of
years will will be able to see who was right.
- 03:42pm Mar 28, 2002 EST (#909
I'm reposting from the previous MD thread, from last year.
almarst-2001 - 12:00am May 22, 2001 EST (#4134 of 4138)
quoted gisterme 5/21/01 1:49pm, in passages I indent, and responds
"Conditions really are different."
"They are. But not different enough for my expectations.
"nobody including the US has a clue about what to
do now or quite how to act in this new environment."
"Most likely so. But that not an impression you get if you listen
to Ramsfeld or Wolfoviz or Bzezinsky.
"There are new challenges (or anceint ones
revived) but few can be solved by force."
"That was always true, wasn't it? But one would come to a
opposite conclusion by studying the US military budget, operational
doctrine and wearpons development programs.
"Fortunately, adaptation is one of the strong
points of our species. :-) "
"Some hope to "adapt" the others into submission while self
adapting to the permanent "masters" and half-Gods. Nothing new here.
"The major and rather fearsome change I see is an attitude of the
public to the war and the ability to conduct a "safe" and remote
"photogenic" acts of crimes, aggression, destruction and
cold-blooded mass-murder. So "beautefull" and even "funny" (remember
the footage of bombing the Iraqi bridge blown by a laser-guided
missiles fired from a stealth bomber, just in front of a poor
motorist), the Pentagon is just proud to provide a footage to the
evening news. No PG lable attached. Children could enjoy.
"Once upon a time the war was a dirty and dangerous endeavour.
How many people could be killed by a single, even the fittest and
most brutal Rome's Legioner in a buttle?
"And now, the moderately fat undergraduate can destroy a city or
nation between two cans of bear. And still have a time to watch the
nightly Football game.
"That is what is really new.
rshowalter - 05:52am May 22, 2001 EST (#4135 of 4138)
Robert Showalter email@example.com
"almarst , that's a superb post.
"In a NYT WEEK IN REVIEW earlier this year, James Dao
wrote a wonderful essay. It was titled.
" Please Do Not Disturb us with Bombs."
"It set out the argument for missile defense very well in the
terms in which people mostly argue for it -- and set that argument
out just below a picture showing a gross servoinstability in a
recent ABM test -- showing how far short our technology actually
remains, compared to the promises offered by the advocates of
"The policy of the current administration, behind a pelthora of
words, many of them evasive and off point, includes the notion set
out in Dao's essay title, but says more. Basically, it says.
" Please do not disturb US with Bombs. But we
can bomb YOU."
"The US has to do better than that - or it degrades itself ---
and the rest of the world has to expect better than that, for its
own safety, and because it degrades itself otherwise.
New York Times on the Web Forums