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
(1665 previous messages)
- 03:45pm Apr 22, 2002 EST (#1666
4/22/02 6:45am cites Mideast powderkeg lies along an ominous
global fault line U.S. carries on with preparations for attack
on Iraq . . . by Matthew Fisher .. National Post (Canada) http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/story.html?f=/stories/20020420/701251.html
, which has this ominous ending:
"For a decade now, the fault lines from the
Balkans to the Caucasus to South Asia and the Middle East, have
pitted the Judeo-Christian and Islamic worlds against each other.
"How this all ends is the biggest issue of our
Surely one of them.
We'd do better, along that "fault line" - and the Islamic world
would as well, if we were more consistent, communicated better --
and if our dealings were more transparent so that people on
the Islamic side could communicate better with us, when they
Some American patterns may not help.
rshowalter - 11:56am Sep 9, 2001 EST (#8698) reads in
The CSIS Board, Counselors, and Advisers include people of
overwhelming influence, achievement, and experience in an
established, interlocking system of trusted and tested people. http://www.csis.org/about/index.htm
. . . .
Could these people, who must be, in essential ways "part of the
solution" also be, in other ways, "part of the problem." ?
With patterns of secrecy and intricate defense in place, the
issue is not effectively discussable.
In dialog with gisterme I've been struck, again and again,
by what I've regarded as an amazing reluctance to admit that
Americans could be even partially at fault for the ills of the
world, or for the agonies of people. I've seen what I've felt to be
a stunning reluctance to consider the possibility that Americans
might have to rethink patterns, and change.
Could such a view be common in the American "establishment"?
If it is, is this position in the national interest of the United
States as a country?
. . . .
Many of the patterns that the elite members of CSIS regard
as most beautiful are exemplified, I believe, in the
NUNN-WOLFOWITZ TASK FORCE REPORT: INDUSTRY "BEST PRACTICES"
REGARDING EXPORT COMPLIANCE PROGRAMS http://22.214.171.124/library/pdf/nunnwolfowitz.pdf
. . . but are these the patterns we need now, or the patterns we
need to get away from?
If we set things up so others don't understand what we do -- how
can we cooperate under complicated, unpredictable, and emotionally
Dawn Riley and I have worked hard to try to find and focus
insights that will make levels of peace and collaboration that have
been impossible before possible. I believe that one of our basic
insights, set out in the beginning of Mankind's Inhumanity to Man
and Woman - As natural as human goodness? fits, and is on point,
(the Guardian board may be down just now.)
- 03:46pm Apr 22, 2002 EST (#1667
Some difficulties of communication occur because of the breadth,
and to some degree the fuzziness, of security laws, especially with
regard to "logical inheritance" - - difficulties communicated in a
way that I thought might apply to me in National Secrets, Too
Frequently Told By WILLIAM S. COHEN http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/05/opinion/05COHE.html
Today, leakers can be subject to both
administrative and criminal penalties. They can be fired, have
their security clearances removed and be disciplined in other
ways. Existing federal criminal law states that whoever has
"information relating to the national defense" and has "reason to
believe [it] could be used to the injury of the United States or
to the advantage of any foreign nation" and "willfully" transmits
that information to "any person not entitled to receive it" shall
be fined or imprisoned for up to 10 years. The term "national
defense" has been broadly defined by the courts, and "advantage"
to a foreign nation need not be disadvantageous to the United
States. The courts have ruled that this provision does not
apply narrowly to "spying" but to disclosure to anyone not
entitled to receive the information — including reporters.
If I communicate on this board, in the belief (though not the
knowledge) that Russians may look at what I write, and if what I
write comes from long term projects with some association with the
US government - and if the communication is actually useful to the
Russians, am I in violation?
- 04:02pm Apr 22, 2002 EST (#1668
What if I communicate similar information outside this board? If
I'm thinking of making a movie involving a project that traces from
an earlier (much earlier) project - - is it vulnerable on grounds of
inheritance? Can I talk about it freely, as I'll have to do to sell
it? How do I say where my work came from? These are practical
The more proud I have a right to be of a piece of work, the more
I'm inclinded to worry. From the 17th to the 24th of March, 2001, I
gave a "briefing" to almarst according to the question "what
would I want to tell Vladimir Putin, if I could." Suppose, as I've
sometimes guessed, Putin or some on his staff got the message, and
found it useful?
That could be helpful MD1229 rshow55
4/10/02 9:59am . . . yet perhaps a source of worry, as well.
New York Times on the Web Forums Science