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
(913 previous messages)
- 04:21pm Mar 28, 2002 EST (#914
"The current US military industrial complex" may be a too
narrow definition as of today. At least it should inlude the Energy
(Oil-Gas) companies and some strategic materials as well. Those are
the main forces, in my view, shaping the American policies and
defining the "American interests" abroad.
May be, those are indeed indispensable and vital interests,
America can't risk to surrender the full control of. But, if so,
that at least should be clearly and openly stated and debated in
THIS Country. Whoes citizens make to pay the taxes and feel
"patriotic" sending the death accross the World.
It MUST be PROVED before the next "humanitarian" bombing is under
way. Before the next "evil" is designated to be exterminated
together with unfortunate "colateral" damage of its citizens.
And, then, it should be clearly and honestly stated WHAT this
nation policy is really about and what it is willing to do to acheve
it. Not to hide behind slogans from the Bible, Constitution and
American Ideals. It is just a little bit too much for the taste of
any "Homo Sapience". Pardon me, please.
- 04:29pm Mar 28, 2002 EST (#915
Almarst , your clarification seems sensible to me. I
believe that, if leaders of nation states outside the US want these
matters clarified, it will happen.
I don't think an American presidential administration in this
century has ever achieved such low credibility as the current one.
People, some inside the US, and many more outside, are getting more
willing to ask for facts - - even when the issue of deception
on the part of the United States has to be explicitly considered.
Here's a quote from a mystery story writer, Dashiell Hammet in
The Thin Man , 1933. Hammet's speaking of a sexy,
interesting, treacherous character named "Mimi". He's asked by a
police detective what to make of what she says:
" The chief thing," I advised him, "is not to
let her wear you out. When you catch her in a lie, she admits it
and gives you another lie to take its place, and when you catch he
in that one, admits it, and gives you still another, and so on.
Most people . . . get discouraged after you've caught them in the
third or fourth straight lie and fall back on the truth or
silence, but not Mimi. She keeps trying, and you've got to be
careful or you'll find yourself believing her, not because she
seems to be telling the truth, but simply because you're tired of
disbelieving her. "
The United States, in its diplomatic and military fuctions, can
be too much like that.
If world leaders want some things clarified, questions of US
veracity are going to have to be adressed. But if leaders want these
matters clarified, these issues can be -- and I believe that it
would be greatly to the benefit of the United States to have them
The "missile defense" boondoggle is a fine place to start,
because the so many of the technical issues are so clear.
- 04:55pm Mar 28, 2002 EST (#916
The photocopier, it's role, in ending the cold war ...
... the Soviet Union was doomed. It could not make the
transition to the information age, since that would require
technological freedoms that threatened the regime. Or, to put it
another way, you cannot have a knowledge-based economy without
freedom of information. ... Which brings us back to the Soviet
Union. Brezhnev & Co wanted to modernise their empire while at
the same time maintaining the perquisites of the ancient régime .
It couldn't be done. http://www.guardian.co.uk/internetnews/story/0,7369,672902,00.html
- 05:07pm Mar 28, 2002 EST (#917
Quote: Albert Camus http://www.quotemeonit.com/camus.html
A free press can of course be good or bad,
but, most certainly, without freedom
it will never be
anything but bad
- 05:17pm Mar 28, 2002 EST (#918
In Betraying Humanity http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/28/opinion/28HERB.html
, Bob Herbert says that ...
" . . . 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."
One key issue, that hasn't been resolved, deals with the flow of
information, and the responsibility to determine and share facts on
which common function and cooperation depend.
Now, there sometimes seems to be an almost unrestricted "freedom
to lie." -- and "freedom to reject checking."
A free press offers an effective force that stands against that.
New York Times on the Web Forums