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
(2617 previous messages)
- 06:09pm Jun 18, 2002 EST (#2618
Pardon me for moving slowly, I'm trying to be careful, and so I'm
taking my time. And trying to stay rested. I feel progress has been
made, and have hopes that more can be made.
At the same time, I'm in an area of logic, and evidence, where I
have to expect strong and passionate resistance.
People want, sometimes want desperately, not to check,
not to have checking happen. They don't dare imagine that
anything they've trusted can possibly be wrong. It is all very
human, and terribly dangerous.
We have soluble problems here - and we know most of what we need
to know. I'm going off to relax, and take my dog on a nice long
I'm posting a sermon that some may have heard already - and after
the first 9:24 it is entirely secular -- and it tells a story that
might be a fiction - but that sets out patterns that I think James
Slatton believed, and expected his congregation to believe. The
sermon is about nuclear risks. It was given to a distinguished,
economically very successful, and very Republican congregation,
which my parents belong to, and I once proudly belonged to. It is a
story about dangers of world destruction that are with us still -
whether the story is true or not. The congregation, I feel sure,
basically believed the story . . and did nothing.
I find the fact that the congregation felt that nothing could be
done interesting. It is hard for certain patterns to be
Unless checking is morally forcing - - it is impossible.
For not much money, much of my stuff can be checked - -
for facts, and for internal consistency with respect to the corpus
of my writings. If I can find a way to get that done, in a
sufficiently credible way -- there will be a lot to hope for. If I
could get THAT from Turner, that would be wonderful, and much else
I'm not asking to be followed as a leader. Don't think I've ever
I'm not asking to be trusted or believed unconditionally - and
think that would be dangerous. I don't think it is either morally
right or safe for people to trust leaders unconditionally.
I'm asking to be checked, and asking that some key facts be
checked - if not to the level of certainty, to the level of
judgement of probabilities. One may disagree with my request - but
if you doubt how much I care about that request - look at how I've
spent my time.
I'm doing what I think is right, and, whether you believe any or
all of my story or not, I'm doing, as well as I can figure it out,
exactly what I think Bill Casey, or any of a number of responsible
people of a previous generation, would want done. The Cold War
should be over, and the terrible compromises of American principles
made to fight to Cold War should be unmade - not perpetuated.
I'm trying, as best I can, to get "completely unshackled", in a
way that makes sense and is safe, for me and for others. I'm feeling
pretty hopeful, and wish I could move faster.
I'm more hopeful than I've been in ten years - - and think that's
plenty of reason for me to be careful. I'm hoping, soon, to get to
the point where I can call Ted Turner, call people associated with
Crusader, and call some other people, too. But I don't want to be
ripped apart - and I have some good reasons for some fears - reasons
that would be easy for a journalist to check.
- 10:14pm Jun 18, 2002 EST (#2619
AS gives the following example of how insane the decisions of the
central authoriities worked out in practice
- 01:10am Jun 19, 2002 EST (#2620
Dowd: On the recent Moscow trip, Condi Rice told reporters
she had given the president "Crime and Punishment" to read
How soon before these guys appear on Gerry Stringer?
New York Times on the Web Forums Science