New York Times Readers Opinions
The New York Times

Home
Job Market
Real Estate
Automobiles
News
International
National
Washington
Business
Technology
Science
Health
Sports
New York Region
Education
Weather
Obituaries
NYT Front Page
Corrections
Opinion
Editorials/Op-Ed
Readers' Opinions


Features
Arts
Books
Movies
Travel
Dining & Wine
Home & Garden
Fashion & Style
Crossword/Games
Cartoons
Magazine
Week in Review
Multimedia
College
Learning Network
Services
Archive
Classifieds
Book a Trip
Personals
Theater Tickets
Premium Products
NYT Store
NYT Mobile
E-Cards & More
About NYTDigital
Jobs at NYTDigital
Online Media Kit
Our Advertisers
Member_Center
Your Profile
E-Mail Preferences
News Tracker
Premium Account
Site Help
Privacy Policy
Newspaper
Home Delivery
Customer Service
Electronic Edition
Media Kit
Community Affairs
Text Version
TipsGo to Advanced Search
Search Options divide
go to Member Center Log Out
  

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  /

    Missile Defense

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 Thursday.


Earliest Messages Previous Messages Recent Messages Outline (10292 previous messages)

rshow55 - 08:59am Mar 21, 2003 EST (# 10293 of 10294) Delete Message
Can we do a better job of finding truth? YES. Click "rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have done and worked for on this thread.

Here's a fascinating story. It says a lot about power - predictability - and the stability of deals under circumstances that are intolerably messy and compromised.

Turkey Delays Opening Airspace to U.S. By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Filed at 7:50 a.m. ET http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Turkey-US-Iraq.html

I hope the war can be won, and it won, cleanly, without making any unreasonable compromises whatsoever with the Turks - and certainly without betraying the interests of the Kurds.

I worked very hard on these postings, and I'm proud of them: 10274 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.RChyaaq05jW.539356@.f28e622/11820 to 10276 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.RChyaaq05jW.539356@.f28e622/11822

In 10275-10276 there's this:

Things sort themselves out into levels - the image in Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs by William G. Huitt Essay and Image : http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/regsys/maslow.html is a clear, important, and general example of a heirarchical system with controls and interfaces of mutual constraint. The generally pyramidal organization is general to essentially all such structures that work.

Look at the picture.

In ordinary business, politics and war there are times when groups that function as assemblies have to be dealt with as they are grouped - as assemblies. People have to act from where they are. If you're near the top of the pyramid in a logical sense, that's what you have to do.

You're Bush - or Putin - or any other leader - or a responsible subordinate - like Casey. You have to make decisions - and there are times when there is no option at all but to "play God" - either by actions with consequences - or by inaction under circumstances where inaction also has consequences.

People can only do as well as they possibly can - with mistakes expected, insensitivities expected, biases expected, even for the best of people because they are people.

But people have to be responsible for what they do - in every way - both because they control events, and because they don't.

rshow55 - 09:05am Mar 21, 2003 EST (# 10294 of 10294) Delete Message
Can we do a better job of finding truth? YES. Click "rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have done and worked for on this thread.

Workable systems - at the level of neurons - small groups - large groups - and groups of groups - tend to work themselves out - with interfaces and multiple levels of control - according to a pattern much like the picture in the Maslow reference.

There have to be limits on the Treaty of Westphalia rules - connections, and constraints -between actors at "the top of their pyramids" and of course that means limitations on the US as well.

The NYT editorial page has been making important points that are in large part dead opposed to things Bush is doing - for important, valid reasons.

The Era of Preventative War http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/425 - which was, for a time, the lead editorial yesterday, is an example, and set out key concerns very clearly.

Almarst is making important points.

Sovereign authority Bush asserts the right to start a war at any time, without anyone’s permission By Michael Kinsley of SLATE.COM is an important, very clear piece. http://www.msnbc.com/news/888245.asp?0dm=C12MO

We need to get a workable system of international law negotiated into being - and that means some issues have to become clearer - and there needs to be some exception handling , and understanding of how that exception handling is to be judged. There is no going back to the Treaty of Westphalia.

We can do a lot better now.

Doing so, every reasonable concern that Almarst has raised can, I believe, be much better handled than today. And the reasonable concerns of NYT editorial pages can be reasonably handled, too. I'd hope that, on things that count, Krugman could be satisfied. And, of course, that means that some Republicans will have to be embarrassed on some key things that matter. Without having to be embarrassed at all about some other things.

An admonition that says "never fight" can't work - and "never start a fight" can't work all the time either.

We have to negotiate some workable patterns of exception handling into being. In any well set up heirarchical system with interfaces of mutual constraint - there are patterns of exception handling - and often enough, in the ways that matter in context - some statisitical variation, some coercion, and some deception are intrinsic parts of a workable system. How well that system works, in the ways that matter, depends on a great deal, and involves both practical and moral questions. In a context.

Except at the cost of continued and escalating chaos, danger and ugliness, there is no going back to the Treaty of Westphalia. We can do better than that. If the US military does well, as it seems to be - and if Tony Blair is given enough backing by the US - the big things that need to fall into place for that to happen seem to be falling into place now.

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Your Preferences

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  / Missile Defense


Enter your response, then click the POST MY MESSAGE button below.
See the
quick-edit help for more information.

Message:






Home | Back to Readers' Opinions Back to Top


Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company | Privacy Policy | Contact Us