New York Times on the Web Forums
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
(4338 previous messages)
- 09:16am Sep 16, 2002 EST (#
4339 of 4349)
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.
Here are Berle's Laws of Power taken from Power
by Adolf A. Berle . . . 1969 ... Harcourt, Brace and
“ The "0th" rule . . . . "Power is always
preferable to chaos. ...To control chaos, people work in
frameworks of power. According to Berle, these frameworks
are always subject to five rules, which I think are right,
and directly relavent to our nuclear peril, and the fixing
" Rule One: Power invariably fills any
vacuum in human organization. ........... When
presidents neglected to give detailed attention in nuclear
policy, other people took power in that area, in a
tradition, very isolated from the American mainstream. That
group of people, as it has developed, mostly in secret, over
fifty years, now holds power. But not unquestionable power.
" Rule Two: Power is invariably
" Rule Three: Power is invariably based
on a system of ideas of philosophy. Absent such a system or
philosophy, the institutions essential to power cease to be
reliable, power ceases to be effective, and the power holder
is eventually displaced.
" Rule Four: Power is exercised through,
and depends on, institutions. By their existence, they
limit, come to control, and eventually confer or withdraw
" Rule Five: Power is invariably
confronted with, and acts in the presence of, a field of
responsibility. The two constantly interact, in
hostility or co-operation, in conflict or through some form
of dialog, organized or unorganized, made part of, or
perhaps intruding into, the institutions on which power
These things are very important constraints - - considering
them simplifies things, by ruling out a good deal.
Consideration also gives a sense of what can reasonably be
done. ( What can be done at reasonable cost is a subset of
what can be explained to the world community. )
We may have to use the force we have - sometimes persuasive
force, or instititional relatins - sometimes lethal force - -
but ideas also matter. i Rule three can't long be broken
Our ideas and ideals, when we live up to them , are
vigorous. To the extent that we're not living up to them, we
have some work to do --- not very difficult work, if faced.
The system of "ideas" that the terrorists and , Iraq have are
contradictory and fragile. Pressure points at the level of
ideas can be powerful -- they'd be overwhelmingly powerful if
we had most of the world behind us. As a nation we need to
understand, more clearly than we do, why so many in the world
are not behind us.
We are looking for stable solutions, with acceptable
(minimal) risks to ourselves and others. We can't minimize our
risks without considering the needs of other people, long term
-- because other people are dangerous animals, as we are
If the US negotiates reasonably, and tells the truth (at
least when it matters enough) on key things, and expects the
same from others - - things can be worked out in the
reasonable interests of all concerned. Unilateral military
action won't be necessary. Saddam's regime, already, is
taking steps and making statements that very much reduce the
practical threats that it can pose, and its own legitimacy,
internally, as well as externally - if it does not do away
with the weapons of mass destruction that it has agreed to
dispose of - and that it denies it has.
- 12:31pm Sep 16, 2002 EST (#
4340 of 4349)
To anyone other than l(ooney)chic and
Do these idiots ever go away?
- 02:35pm Sep 16, 2002 EST (#
4341 of 4349)
Why George .... thought you must have run to enlist for the
'next war' ....
The 80|20 rule .... what's that ... throw away that 80%
chaff ... concentrate on the 20.
20% of Americans think 'war with Iraq' isn't such a good
were 'conscription' a lottery ....
how many of the remaining 80% would be so enthusiastic ?
The world noted how skewed the USA press was wrt the Middle
East ..... is that same law of propaganda in operation once
(8 following messages)
New York Times on the Web Forums