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.
(10304 previous messages)
fredmoore
- 07:08am Mar 22, 2003 EST (#
10305 of 10312)
Robert ...
Thanks for the citation.
My take on current events comes from that Simpson's episode
where there is a 'Jumper' on the Springfield town hall roof.
At a critical moment the Chief calls out "Bring in the sound
trucks" and the psychological effect of the music defuses the
situation.
The Lionel richie song 'Se La' is perfect to the situation
in Baghdad.
"There would be no more living in desperation
And no more hatred and deceit
Tell me can you imagine
All the children playing
And everyone dancing in the street
It's time you know for everyone to come together
I know its hard but this dream must come to light
Because life should be one big celebration
I'm talking to you now
Only we can make things right!"
So .... Bring out the sound trucks .... and a few million
leaflets with translated lyrics.
Ballerina girl .......
Smart music can be every bit as effective as smart bombs in
the right situation. In fact the entire 'Dancing On The
Ceiling' tape has a lot to offer both coalition forces and
Iraqis. I suspect a lot of bonding will occur over the coming
weeks in Iraq and that process should be enhanced by targeting
with 'smart psychology'. We all hope the smart bombs can be
put away and saved for the next tyrant.
LOL
rshow55
- 08:08am Mar 22, 2003 EST (#
10306 of 10312)
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 fredmoore's 9426 of Mar 3, 2003 again.
Fredmoore's story involves consequences, and coupled effects.
Willy Hoppe, the great billiards artist, would have
appreciated the story - because, in a pool or billiards
competition - unless you can actually sweep the board, never
missing - with divergences totally under control as
ball hits ball - you have to worry about how you leave
the board. Hoppe was a master of that. I don't think President
Bush can hope to play\ his game so well. http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.BIeGalYc5az.750658@.f28e622/10965
And this is not a game.
rshow55
- 08:11am Mar 22, 2003 EST (#
10307 of 10312)
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.
Bill Keller did an interesting piece today - that I think
is wrong - Powell should stay.
Why Colin Powell Should Go By BILL KELLER http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/22/opinion/22KELL.html
The famous hardheaded definition of war is
"the continuation of politics by other means." In the real
world, though, war is the failure of politics. This war —
undertaken at such cost to America's own interests — is
specifically a failure of Colin Powell's politics.
Even if you believe that this war is
justified, the route to it has been an ugly display of
American opportunism and bullying, dissembling and
dissonance.
The negotiations I've ever seen, that are actually
negotiaitons on serious things, have all involved plenty of
"opportunism and bullying, dissembling and dissonance."
Keller's father was a major oil industry executive, and Keller
must have a very much wider experience of negotiations than I
can have - I wonder whether he really knows of very
many exceptions, when stakes are serious.
_ _ _ _ _ _
Here's another interesting Keller piece:
Pre-emption By BILL KELLER http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/15/magazine/15PREE.html
In a world where shadowy enemies can create
havoc without warning, the lone remaining superpower is
obliged to strike first wherever danger breeds. That is this
year's bold new idea in grand strategy, the offspring of
America's seemingly insurmountable military superiority and
the heightened sense of danger after Sept. 11. The United
States, the argument goes, cannot afford to let an adversary
land the first punch, or even start his windup, when that
punch could let loose a nuclear, chemical or biological
horror.
Depending on which analyst you ask, this
represents either a radical departure from, or an overdue
updating of, the two mainstream schools of American strategy
that have jostled for primacy since World War II.
We've got some interesting negotiations, involving force
and very high stakes going on now. I'm concerned, but
reasonably optimistic. And I don't think Powell should
go.
(5 following messages)
New York Times on the Web Forums
Science
Missile Defense
|