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
(2449 previous messages)
- 03:23pm Jun 3, 2002 EST (#2450
6/2/02 4:57pm . . . steps toward progress. Perhaps a useful
Why not fix the global warming problem?
(Not just cope with it, or slow down the problem -
but fix it.)
Why not fix the world's basic long term energy shortage?
Why not find and then achieve optimal solutions for
big, basically simple problems that can be clearly defined, in terms
of clear physical laws, and clear engineering relationships?
Why not get analysis good enough so we don't get "blindsided"
when we should be "collecting the dots" and "connecting the dots" --
so that we can avoid disasters, avoid investing in programs
(including some in "missile defense") that can't work?
Why not find programs that can work - or are
excellent gambles, with good, known, advantageous chances of
The reasons why not are fairly simple, and similar, for many
questions of this kind.
And the barriers to progress are fixable. But the fix would
require some changes, sometimes, about some things. AEA was an
effort to find a way to adress those changes MD2116 rshow55
5/9/02 9:34am ... and I'm hoping to get, in
majumicha2001's phrase "unshackled" so that what was learned
in the AEA program can be put to use. And so that I can have enough
title to what I've done so that I'll be able to function.
Took useful steps today, and the ball, just now, is in my court.
- 04:37pm Jun 3, 2002 EST (#2451
Canada : An angry Mr Chretien has chosen to blame his rivals
for his problems http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,727041,00.html
- 04:44pm Jun 3, 2002 EST (#2452
Russia and China stepped up efforts
to engineer a face-to-face meeting between India's prime minister,
Atal Bihari Vajpayee, and Pakistan's military ruler, General Pervez
- 05:03pm Jun 3, 2002 EST (#2453
In an interview with The Independent, Lord
Phillips, one of the top four judges in the country, said the high
fees were driving up insurance premiums as it was insurance
companies that were footing the legal bills. http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/story.jsp?story=301680
The difficulty is that it is the litigant who has to bear the
cost. Litigants of course include, and very largely consist of,
insurers who fund the liabilities. The costs of civil litigation in
this country are very large and that is partly attributable to the
fact lawyers are very expensive."
Since Sept11 there's been a crisis in INSURANCE here in Australia
(there were also a few INScompanies in trouble). The Government
(State by State) is having to consider re-establishing an insurance
mechanism. Many community and tourist operations have been asked to
pay exhorbitant insurance - which they can't meet. Consideration is
being given to paying claims from court via lifelong installments
& to legislate to bring them down $$$ dollarwise.
A solution that hasn't yet been considered is to factor in 'risk'
as an ongoing lifeskill academicUnit - if people are more aware of
risk they might reign-in their activities, or, might approach them
procedurally with planning.
Raises the point that if 'risk' and personal safety were put to
the fore .... then
???? what would the international 'gut reaction' to the nuclear
debarcle be - in line with national gut feelings and rejection of
- 05:26pm Jun 3, 2002 EST (#2454
Bush said he reserved the right to take pre-emptive military
action against any ...
.... Invading Iraq is a long-cherished ambition of Bush
- 05:31pm Jun 3, 2002 EST (#2455
If people had their "guts" at all well connected to the reality
of what nukes do - and how useless they are for any reasonable
military purpose -- we'd find ways to get rid of them.
Lies are dangerous. There are many dangerous fictions in the
world -- not all in Islamic nations. We need to be honest, and
checkable, ourselves. We have reason to want to check about
the rationality of our military arrangements.
Is nuclear prohibition impossible? So flawed that it isn't worth
doing? It isn't that easy to make a nuke - a good many
controls are now in place, and working -- though we can do better.
Nuclear Nightmares By BILL KELLER http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/26/magazine/26NUKES.html
We can do better accounting - about matters of business, and
matters of life and death, as well. Putting the matter gently,
there's room for improvement - and enough that's senseless that
we'll all be safer if military policy is watched.
The Fighting Next Time By BILL KELLER http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/10/magazine/10MILITARY.html
3/10/02 3:03pm ... MD330 rshow55
And there is watching, and rebalancing, going on.
A Beautiful Friendship by BILL KELLER http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/18/opinion/18KELL.html
5/18/02 12:43pm ... MD2278 rshow55
New York Times on the Web Forums Science