New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

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.

rshow55 - 03:24am Jun 10, 2003 EST (# 12443 of 12448)
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.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/jun2003/ps-j09.shtml bears reading - but it is as incomplete and unsatisfactory in key ways as Full Text: Bush's National Security Strategy http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/20/politics/20STEXT_FULL.html - - which also bears reading in its entirety. We need arrangements that serve the needs they are supposed to serve, and that can work.

12350 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.suVzbmnie2U.224716@.f28e622/13999

2737 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.suVzbmnie2U.224716@.f28e622/3409 Things to check, every which way, when it matters.

Berle's Laws of Power

Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs

The Golden Rule

"Solutions" not consistent with these constraining patterns may work for a short time, or with great strains on parts of the human system involved -- but they are unstable.

Berle and Maslow: MD667-8 rshow55 3/18/02 12:13pm http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.suVzbmnie2U.224716@.f28e622/826

search Maslow, this thread.

9675 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.suVzbmnie2U.224716@.f28e622/11216

rshow55 - 03:27am Jun 10, 2003 EST (# 12444 of 12448)
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.

I was asked to look for stability conditions in what Kline later called "sociotechnical systems" - and asked to find end games that resulted in stable, efficient, humane function by Eisenhower. That doesn't make me "pure" - I worked on some terrible things, too. But perhaps things I've worked out could be more widely and clearly understood and more useful than they are. The points I've been making are, after all, pretty simple, basic, and "obvious."

Stability is a key requirement - but there are others that are also important in human terms. Including needs that socialists and free market supporters claim to share - that all decent human beings -and many human beings who are deeply flawed - all share.

Unless there are good answers in human terms - jobs can't and don't get done. People have to be taken care of in ways that make human and practical sense.

I was asked to find solutions to technical problems.

12377 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.suVzbmnie2U.224716@.f28e622/14027

12378 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.suVzbmnie2U.224716@.f28e622/14028

Under modern conditions, there is often no alternative to "an elite, with authority, administering things" but that administration must be judged in terms of how is serves the common good, not only its own. 12379 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.suVzbmnie2U.224716@.f28e622/14029

I made a request in a postcard in November 2001 that I think is worth reconsidering. http://www.mrshowalter.net/LtToSenateStffrWSulzbergerNoteXd.html

I'd like a chance to make some suggestions to people who might have some influence about Korea.

almarst2002 - 10:01am Jun 10, 2003 EST (# 12445 of 12448)

"must be judged in terms of how is serves the common good"

Judged by WHOM?

COMMON GOOD by WHAT CRITERIA?

Who will COUNT RESULTS and BE ACCOUNTABLE?

We can see that even internaly, the so called Democratic Nations are far from a perfect in answering the above.

And we can clearly see complete lack of accountability for mistakes, disasters and even crimes commited aroad. All in the name of GOOD (it used to be in the name of GOD and QUIN )

almarst2002 - 10:11am Jun 10, 2003 EST (# 12446 of 12448)

N. Korea: Conventional Forces Too Expensive – We Need Nukes - http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/06/09/1055010934841.html

ABSOLUTLY CORRECT.

(2 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense