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
(5725 previous messages)
- 05:09pm Nov 13, 2002 EST (#
5726 of 5728)
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.
Human beings live, and must live, in social groups
characterized by relations of power. Here are basic rules that
human organizations have to fulfill if they are to work
Berle's Laws of Power taken from Power by Adolf A.
Berle . . . 1969 ... Harcourt, Brace and World, N.Y.
“ 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. ........... For example,
American 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 much power. But not unquestionable
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 depends.
These rules and needs are very important constraints
- - considering them simplifies things, by ruling out a
good deal, and giving 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 communities that matter. )
We may have to use the force we have - sometimes persuasive
force, or instititional relatins - sometimes lethal force - -
but ideas also matter. Rule three can't long be broken
without consequences. That means that systems have to make
sense - because there is only so much fiction that a system
can stably withstand - and also work well.
When arrangements need to be changed, leaders must look for
stable solutions, with acceptable (minimal) risks to ourselves
and others. For quite practical reasons - the solutions need
to be as beautiful as they can be.
We can't minimize our risks without considering the needs
of other people, long term -- for humanly warm reasons, but
also because other people are dangerous animals, as we are
(2 following messages)
New York Times on the Web Forums