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
(2232 previous messages)
- 08:23pm May 15, 2002 EST (#2233
4/4/02 1:20pm sets out, in some detail, how checking to closure
on key issues of missile defense can be done. In the
Palestinian-Israeli situation - some things are different from this.
In some ways these problems of war and peace are more complicated,
but in many ways, they are simple and clear. MD2008 rshow55
I've decided that the postings set out or linked between http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.eea14e1/1253
are good enough, and well enough explained, for any group actually
trying to use the internet to get to closure on the complex issues
that peace in the middle east needs. MD2230 rshow55
That is, if responsible people would actually act, themselves, to
get their problems set out clearly, and in detail - and brought to
focus. If people tried to do this, using tools now widely available,
they could. They'd have to learn by doing.
The key problem is making a decision to get the things
that matter for action clear. Getting the courage to recognize that
they very often are not clear. And mustering the courage and the
discipline to work for clarity, and get it.
For all the moral and emotional problem in the middle east, there
are huge logical problems, as well, that have to be resolved
for there to be real hope.
How, at this late date, can we be dealing, as Friedman points
out, with "nine wars too many?" http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/15/opinion/15FRIE.html
"The biggest problem in resolving the Arab-Israeli
conflict is that there are at least 10 different wars being fought
over Israel-Palestine, and we need to reduce them to just one to
have any chance of making peace."
To have any chance of making peace, people have to be clear about
what they want, and able to explain it so everyone agrees. -- And
after negotiation, clear on what they have agreed to, so that the
agreement actually exists in usable form.
When there are "10 different wars" being fought -- people are
posing - or dreaming - or using language as nothing more as a
structure to justify fighting without end. We have to do better than
Human beings know how important operational clarity is when they
do serious things. Complex jobs have to be specified, clearly - and
in ways that are actually possible -- before they can possibly get
Does Arafat know what he wants - something that he can explain to
his people - along with a reasonable argument that what he wants is
Does anybody else?
If staffed organizations actually tried to explain themselves to
themselves, and to the other groups involved, on the internet -
where muddles would be easily seen by anybody who had to be involved
- problems would stand out clearly - and cry for solution.
Would solutions be available? When human beings look
clearly at the problems they actually have, in detail - in
situations with as many alternatives as this - and as much
motivation as this -- they usually are.
- 08:27pm May 15, 2002 EST (#2234
Contractor Told Army of Nixed Weapon by THE ASSOCIATED
Before the House committee met May 1, a member of the Army's
legislative liaison office prepared a set of ``talking points''
about the decision to cut the Crusader, the report said.
``Killing a relatively small program -- $11
(billion) -- which is on time and on budget -- is much easier than
killing more expensive programs with greater problems, such as
(the Air Force's) F-22 (fighter) and (the Marine Corps') V-22
(hybrid helicopter-airplane),'' the memo said.
"The memo's author did not intend for it to be
released publicly, and Steadman acted on his own to do so, the
inspector general's report said.
. . .
Steadman was called "disloyal" -- -but loyal to whom? It is very
much in the interest of the United States, as a whole, to understand
how irrational and inflexible our military expenditures are. On
missile defense, and other things. And also how constrained
the "discourse" in military circles is, by considerations such as
"loyalty" that are very narrowly set out -- and not in the interest
of either the United States as a whole, or of the world.
How much in the procurement budget really makes sense in
the national interest? MD1318 rshow55
Loyalty is to a narrow group, and sometimes such "loyalties" can
make a terrible, senseless mess rigid and unchangeable - - unless
there are ways to "go around" constraints. People who show such
"loyalty" often know that they are being "disloyal" in a larger
sense. Sometimes it takes courage to acknowledge the truth, and act
on it - and organizations, all over the world know it, though they
often fall short.
Daring to Shoulder Historical Responsibility: Way to Become
Big Political Power http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200104/18/eng20010418_67992.html
That article expresses important and practical ideals. But China
sometimes violates the good advice in that article horribly, and
then, the press is important to save lives, and make for
WHEN LIES KILL: In China, the Right to Truth Meets Life and
Death by ERIK ECKHOLM http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/17/weekinreview/17ECKH.html
" An AIDS epidemic in a rural Chinese province
is only the latest example of the heavy costs of the controls on
information and political choice."
In missile defense, defense more generally, and all through the
Middle East, there are many examples of those heavy costs.
- 09:12pm May 15, 2002 EST (#2235
The worst aspect of the voodoo and lying related to AIDS is
the horrific sexual abuse of young children and babes by infected
New York Times on the Web Forums Science