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
(1844 previous messages)
- 07:05pm Apr 28, 2002 EST (#1845
"Why is the United States a "super power"? Why is the United
States the "lone" super power today? "
In large part - the pure luck. Geographical detachement and
natural berders of two oceans. Friendly and weak neighbors. Plenty
of natural resources. Plenty of free underdeveloped living space.
Plenty of disasters abroad which brought in the very good human
capital ready to work for the very low compensation.
In large part - good socio-economical foundation. Large middle
class. Separation of religion from the government. Solid and
relatively independent judicial system.
In large part - opportunism, pragmatism and agressiveness of the
ruling elite. Worshiping the one and ond only God - the $ and the
self-interest. And spreading this inspiration accross the majority
of the population.
The events of the last Century can't be replayed. But the
tendencies stay and project into the future.
"Colonizing the Galaxy in Eight Easy Steps" I would let
Mr. Savage to spend some time in one of the underdeveloped countries
first. May be he can come up with some "easy steps" to solve the
real World's problems. What problems the colonization of the Galaxy
is suppose to solve? And who is going to bear the cost?
The most importand part of the planing and budgeting is
- 07:25pm Apr 28, 2002 EST (#1846
Bush struggles with 'foreign policy stuff' - http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,691137,00.html
"In an aggressive, back-to-basics speech in Lexington,
Virginia, Mr Bush restated and revived some established themes. Back
on the agenda again, for instance, was the "axis of evil" that he
first revealed to a startled world last January. He did not single
out Iraq, Iran and North Korea by name this time. But when he
described the "mad ambitions" of a "small number of outlaw regimes"
that possess nuclear weapons, he was presumably not referring to
Britain or France.
Mr Bush repeated his hegemoniacal mantra that, in the battle
against global terrorism, "nations must choose - they are with us,
or they're with the terrorists". He claimed for his policy a high
moral purpose, aimed at bolstering "the dignity and value of every
individual" in what, under American guidance, would become "a better
world". And he warned that the US would readily resort to military
means to "defeat the threats against our country and the civilised
world" - without identifying the "uncivilised" bits.
There was a time, not so long ago, when this sort of language
from an American political leader would be discounted abroad as mere
demagoguery, aimed perhaps at winning an election.
The problem nowadays, the world has learned, is that Mr Bush
really believes this stuff. It may be simplistic, superficial
nonsense; it may be harmful to international stability and mature
dialogue between nations; it may indeed be counter-productive,
having the effect of alienating and alarming friendly countries and
antagonising potential enemies. To non-American ears, it certainly
sounds arrogant and foolish in the extreme. But it has become the
"Bush doctrine" and as such, it is official US policy, and everybody
has to deal with it.
What is permissible to hear from a six-pack Loe may be lough at
when come from the leading American journalist. But really
frightening when become a Presidential Doctrine.
- 07:27pm Apr 28, 2002 EST (#1847
Priorities are clearer if people can see the needs, and
see the suffering.
That isn't always enough, but it helps.
The most important things to do are the things that matter for
Here are some basic, universal relationships that we need to take
into account -- and that make our opportunities clear.
Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs: Maslow's Hierarchy of
Needs by William G. Huitt
Essay and Image: http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/regsys/maslow.html
If we look at the basics, we'll have our hands full, but have
jobs that we ought to be able to do.
For the money now squandered on "missile defense" that can't
possibly work, we could do a lot
- 07:30pm Apr 28, 2002 EST (#1848
Mix a little GU.com with NYT.com - NET the wider
Log cabin to Whitehouse - not any more !
America is the most unequal society in the industrialised
West. The richest 20 per cent of Americans earn nine times more
than the poorest 20 per cent, a scale of inequality half as great
again as in Japan, Germany and France. At the very top of American
society, incomes and wealth have reached stupendous proportions.
The country boasts some three million millionaires, and the
richest 1 per cent of the population hold 38 per cent of its
wealth, a concentration more marked than in any comparable
country. This inequality is the most brutal fact of American life.
Nor is it excused by more mobility and opportunity than other
societies, America's great conceit. The reality is that US society
is polarising and its social arteries hardening. The sumptuousness
and bleakness of the respective lifestyles of rich and poor
represent a scale of difference in opportunity and wealth that is
almost medieval - and a standing offence to the American
expectation that everyone has the opportunity for life, liberty
- 07:31pm Apr 28, 2002 EST (#1849
4/28/02 7:25pm . . . there are limits to US power, and
the power of presidents, and other nations need to look carefully at
them, and establish reasonable controls.
Deference to the good judgement and good will of the United
States used to be assumed among very many peoples. That deference is
declining pretty fast - - and adjustments are being made.
New York Times on the Web Forums Science