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
(1066 previous messages)
- 08:21am Apr 4, 2002 EST (#1067
4/3/02 9:16pm is a very important posting. If what
almarst says is correct, the US is doing some things exactly
Endangering itself, its allies, and the whole world.
We need to learn to make peace. Real peace - that is stable. The
idea that the US can simply dominate the earth, and remain
invulnerable, has been discredited by events.
- 08:32am Apr 4, 2002 EST (#1068
Commuication : crisis
- 08:36am Apr 4, 2002 EST (#1069
... Managing Crisis
Two issues are involved in any crisis situation: anticipation and
There are rules and precepts that need to be followed in crisis
management and communications, but none more important than the one
cardinal rule of TELL IT ALL, TELL IT FAST.
Make Everything Possible Public
The less people know about what is going on in a crisis the more
they fear possible consequences. The national hysteria that followed
the Arab oil embargo, the Chilean grape recall, and the use of the
pesticide Alar on apples brought home the fact that when there is no
information available in a crisis, rumors will breed quickly.
It is important not to hold back any information during a crisis
situation. This is part of the "Tell It All" rule. This means
telling all pertinent details, as long as security or
confidentiality is not breached. Following an incident or accident,
the media will want to know the usual information - who, what, when,
where, why, and how. The smart company is quick to provide
straightforward answers to those questions.
- 09:08am Apr 4, 2002 EST (#1070
On Why the assimetrical warfare is here to stay.
Before the notions of a nation, superior nation and
nationalism coupled with "the only true" religion where refined
and put to use by the rullers of a time, the lost in war would
mostly bear an economic consequences of paying the taxes to a
different ruller. For the ordinary man, there was no much reason to
fight to the death.
Those "inventions", born in Europe, where used to motivate the
ordinary man to sacrifice all for the interests of a rulling elite
in a name of the above "absolute" and "sacred" ideas. The enemy had
to be dehumanised and compared to evil. Forced to denounce and
betray its culture, heritage and religion as inferior. The deep and
unberable to many HUMILIATION.
That why, the military superiority will not be enough to convince
the proud and the brave to succumb. They will fight by ALL MEANS
- 09:22am Apr 4, 2002 EST (#1071
mazza asks wether I believe that "Any action is justified if a
person perceives that an imbalance exists."
Yes. For those who believe they defend somthing to sacred to give
away to the percieved agressor.
It's hard for me to imagine what such a thing could be for you,
mazza. May be you would go to the phone to call the police and wait
till they come while Mike Tyson rapes your child? Or you would ask
him to face you on the ring according to the rules? What I suspect
for many to do, is to spray a gasoline on a beast and put him on
fire. Then go to the phone.
- 09:52am Apr 4, 2002 EST (#1072
If people understood, really understood, what almarst is
saying, and understood why people do feel and act as he describes,
we'd all live in a safer, more comfortable, more beautiful, more
stable world. We could make peace. Stably.
People can and do fight.
Sometimes fighting is unavoidable. Not so very often.
Because people also value life, and things they regard as
Very often, people find ways to make adjustments, that they can
understand and live with - so that workable interactions can go on.
We need to learn to do that in cases where we are failing now.
I think that if we lied less, faced a few facts, and did some
work, we could do a lot better than we've been doing.
4/3/02 11:01am ... Md1029 rshow55
- 10:17am Apr 4, 2002 EST (#1073
To use the almarst analogy we must react to an attack in a severe
and uncontolled manner. "pour gasoline on the beast". Since this
forum is about missile
DEFENSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!then maybe a proper
defense will insure that my child is not raped by Mike Tyson without
having to resort to gasoline.
You go far afield and quote many disparate sources when the
subject of this forum is very straightforward. The military has
always followed the lead of the "rulers" whether king, czar,
dictator or political head of state.
You an lchic constantly divert the questions I pose by declaring
them diversionary. I ask again, "Who made you the diversionary
- 11:40am Apr 4, 2002 EST (#1074
"must react to an attack in a severe and uncontolled
The question is - "What attack?"
New York Times on the Web Forums Science