New York Times Forums
The New York Times

Home
Job Market
Real Estate
Automobiles
News
International
National
Washington
Business
Technology
Science
Health
Sports
New York Region
Education
Weather
Obituaries
NYT Front Page
Corrections
Opinion
Editorials/Op-Ed
Readers' Opinions


Features
Arts
Books
Movies
Travel
Dining & Wine
Home & Garden
Fashion & Style
Crossword/Games
Cartoons
Magazine
Week in Review
Multimedia
College
Learning Network
Services
Archive
Classifieds
Book a Trip
Personals
Theater Tickets
Premium Products
NYT Store
NYT Mobile
E-Cards & More
About NYTDigital
Jobs at NYTDigital
Online Media Kit
Our Advertisers
Member_Center
Your Profile
E-Mail Preferences
News Tracker
Premium Account
Site Help
Privacy Policy
Newspaper
Home Delivery
Customer Service
Electronic Edition
Media Kit
Community Affairs
Text Version
TipsGo to Advanced Search
Search Options divide
go to Member Center Log Out
  

 [F] 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.


Earliest Messages Previous Messages Recent Messages Outline (15469 previous messages)

lchic - 10:32am Oct 23, 2003 EST (# 15470 of 15472)
ultimately TRUTH outs : TRUTH has to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong foundation

The shadow of empires

Oct 16th 2003 From The Economist print edition

What really unites Europe are faded imperial memories

PASCAL LAMY, a European commissioner from France, recently mused publicly about why some members of the European Union are more awkward to deal with than others. “We have to recognise”, he said, “that there are some countries which remember that they were once great world powers and which believe that this was not an accident—that they still have special qualities that deserve recognition: France, Britain, Spain, Poland.” At the mention of Poland, there was a snort of derision from a Hungarian in the audience. But the real quarrel with Mr Lamy's list is not that it is too long, but too short. The remarkable thing about the European Union is how many of its 15—soon to be 25—members once had a crack at world, or at least continental, power. A shared sense that they have seen greater days is now a big psychological link between EU members.

France has its memories of Napoleon; Britain and Spain had their empires. But faded grandeur is a characteristic of smaller countries too. When Arnold Schwarzenegger won the Californian governorship, Anneliese Rohrer, an Austrian journalist, wrote in the International Herald Tribune that their compatriot's success had inspired Austrians and “stirred memories of the times when there was an emperor and an empire; when the country was a force to be reckoned with.” Similar sentiments could be echoed by many countries around Europe. The Netherlands, Portugal and Belgium may just be small-to-middling European countries today. But within living memory the Dutch controlled Indonesia, the Portuguese large chunks of Africa and the Belgians ran the Congo, a country the size of western Europe.

Colonialism is not nowadays something to boast about. But many European countries reach further back in history for their period as a world power. The Greeks take pride in having been the cradle of western civilisation. The Italians aspire to be heirs to imperial Rome. Sweden under Gustavus Adolphus in the 17th century was a European power to rival Russia. Even Denmark, the epitome of a modest European country with modest views and ambitions, whose chief sources of pride seem to be the quality of its social services, the royal family and the occasional victory on the football field, has folk memories. Danish fans like to turn up at football matches in Viking helmets, revealing a certain shy pride in their ancestors' history of rape and pillage.

After the Union expands from 15 to 25 members next year, it may be tempting to assume that the new members will not carry the same sort of historical baggage. When did Malta dominate the world, or Latvia? But the fact that eight of these countries have only recently shrugged off years of communism has in some ways made them even more conscious of their decline. Hungarians know that their country was once three times its current size, until it was dismembered after the first world war. The Poles and Lithuanians recall medieval times, when their joint empire stretched from the Baltic to the Black Sea. And just wait for the Turks, who can recall an Ottoman empire that once came close to the gates of Vienna.

Europe or bust The relationship between awareness of national decline and a desire to be in the European Union is complicated and varies from country to country. Germany's bid for world power ended in disaster and disgrace; for modern Germans Europe represents an effort to transcend traditional realpolitik, so the EU is associated more with peace and prosperity than with power projection. The French sometimes complain that “the Germans just want Europe to be a big Switzerland.” They, by contrast, want the European Union to be a big France. As the Iraq war has shown, the French are a long way from abandoning the idea that their country can still play a glorious role on the world stage. But since modern France ca

lchic - 10:35am Oct 23, 2003 EST (# 15471 of 15472)
ultimately TRUTH outs : TRUTH has to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong foundation

Cold War - Caribbean


More Messages Recent Messages (1 following message)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Your Preferences

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  / Missile Defense