New York Times on the Web Forums
Science
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.
(10292 previous messages)
rshow55
- 08:59am Mar 21, 2003 EST (#
10293 of 10294)
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)
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.
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.
|