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
(1972 previous messages)
- 12:00pm May 3, 2002 EST (#1973
Showalter asks above why do the players resort to WAR rather than
sort out problems via negotiations?
It's a good question.
Why are negotiations not seen as the best solution.
How is it that ME discussions are now occuring - why not a year
Clinton had concerns regarding the Middle East - what were his
major current concerns?
In the ME situtation the Palestinians were seen as OTHERs from
ELSEWHERE who (in the USA MEDIA) have not been afforded the status
of the Jews/Israel. Why hasn't that status been equivalent?
If the goal for Europe is a trading block - can the ME be also
accommodated to build into a modern economy, trader, society that
can interact with the EU ... building to equal terms?
The 'need' for a country that has a huge defense budget seems to
be wars - many conjured. If the USA reduced this budget and looked
to upgrading either it's own (and/or world citizens) wouldn't this
be a more effective use of money?
That there has been NO SENSE OF THE VALUE OF MONEY has been seen
recently eg as TANKS have TRASHED medical transporters. Countries
hungry for wars rather than settlement via negotiation seem to have
the old-war-horse head held low patternings ... along with armies
and armaments they are too readily prepared to use.
If the UN were a proper world body it would look to outlaw the
concept of war - rather assisting weak economies to grow.
If zones damaged by an intruding army could make legal swift
claims for damages to : people, infrastructure, properties that were
binding - then warmongers would have to think of debt repayments
crippling them for years into the future - and have more regard for
life&limb - and an improved sense of the value of things.
Just looking at road alterations and reconstruction, thinking
about the people and materials involved .... it takes a LOT of
EFFORT to develop towns and cities ... and this should be better
- 12:03pm May 3, 2002 EST (#1974
|> C U L T U R E
- 02:30pm May 3, 2002 EST (#1975
5/3/02 12:00pm ... "Showalter asks above why do the players
resort to WAR rather than sort out problems via negotiations? . .
. Why are negotiations not seen as the best solution?"
Partly, because the technique of negotiation has been
limited. We can do better now, and to successfully face up to
challenges ahead, we have to. From where we now stand, great
improvements would be easy and inexpensive. What a difference it
would make if complexities were competently handled in the
undertaking the US, Russia, and the EU have just announced!
U.S., in Surprise, Announces Global Talks for Mideast By
TODD S. PURDUM and DAVID E. SANGER http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/03/international/middleeast/03CAPI.html
shows a situation where, if complications can be faced - -
and resolved, enormous good could come. MD1972 lchic
5/3/02 11:45am includes key questions:
In one years time - where do we ALL want to be?"
"In five years time - where do we ALL want to be?"
years time - where do we ALL want to be?"
"In twenty years
time - where do we ALL want to be?"
"Planning should match the aspirations of those publics with a
visionary future." For that matching to be possible, there have
to be mechanics in place that make it possible , for the real
If responsible people actually read and thought about the things
I said yesterday -- which were simple things, practical things --
mechanically easy things -- then I believe that the chances for real
success in the middle east would be significantly improved. We need
to do better getting to closure than we have done. We can.
5/2/02 11:24am ... MD1959 rshow55
5/2/02 2:20pm ... MD1962 rshow55
- 02:32pm May 3, 2002 EST (#1976
Opportunities for a safer, more prosperous world are very great
-- but they depend on openness, and correct decisions. I believe
some of the most essential opportunities were set out eloquently and
well in Organizing the World to Fight Terror by IGOR S.
IVANOV , Russian Foreign Minister http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/27/opinion/27IVAN.html
. The reasons that the hopes expressed there have been largely
dashed (or at least postponed) bear looking at. I think that
important hopes Ivanov expresses, and patterns or human cooperation
he expresses, could be revived if the mechanics of complex
negotiation were improved, as it now can be.
- 03:24pm May 3, 2002 EST (#1977
"" ... Russia is prepared to work out far-reaching
understandings on disarmament with the United States, based on
principles of mutual trust, predictability and transparency. This
could become a most important positive signal for the entire world
community ........Russia and the United States will serve their own
interests and will strengthen international security as a whole. /
Igor S. Ivanov (Russian foreign minister). ""
An important signal indeed when Russia has other
important nations as 'friends'. It seems a pity that America has not
started to even work towards Nuclear disarmament by actually
taking down Nukes!
New York Times on the Web Forums Science