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
(5729 previous messages)
- 08:29pm Nov 13, 2002 EST (#
5730 of 5736)
Vision Mission Values
The process began with an all-staff meeting in which Ms.
Jurow emphasized that strategic planning has the potential
to transform organizations in two ways: by the products and by
the very nature of the process itself.
She also introduced us to the concept of paradigms,
or mental models, and the idea that strategic planning
might involve significant paradigm shifts in the
- 08:37pm Nov 13, 2002 EST (#
5731 of 5736)
Strategic thinking is “directional,” determining where you
want to go.
• Planning is determining how you will get there, what
resources you will use, and how you will put them into action.
If you are taking a trip, for example, strategic thinking is
choosing a destination; planning is deciding whether to fly or
... an essential element of strategic thinking is that it
is data-driven. It does not emanate from a lone genius sitting
in an ivory tower. It begins with gathering sufficient
information to make decisions on what your direction will be,
what issues you need to address
.... Once you have a sense of where you are and where you
want to go, the differences between the two will be clearly
identified as what you need to change
.... the outcome of strategic thinking itself—is the
identification of issues: What do I need to do today to create
the future I want? Once issues have been identified, you can
begin to prioritize what you will do to address them; you can
begin to plan.
To analyze the components of the Societal Environment, for
example, the following must be considered:
• Economic forces: GNP trends, interest rates, money
supply, inflation rates, unemployment levels, wage/price
controls (if any), devaluation/revaluation, energy
availability and cost, and monetary exchange rates.
• Technology forces: total federal and industry spending
for research and development, the focus of technological
efforts, patent protection, new products, new developments in
technology transfer from development to market, and
productivity improvement through automation.
• Political-legal forces: antitrust regulations,
environmental protection laws, tax laws, special incentives,
foreign trade regulations, attitudes toward foreign companies,
laws on hiring and promotion, and stability of government.
• Socio-cultural forces: literacy levels, lifestyle
changes; career expectations; consumer activism; rate of
family formation; population growth rate, age distribution,
and regional shifts; life expectancies; and birth rates.
- 08:46pm Nov 13, 2002 EST (#
5732 of 5736)
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.
Lunarchic is the most valuable mind I've ever been
close to - and I'm honored to work with her.
Let me post this, before knocking off for the night.
11/13/02 2:08am contain some very eloquent writing, in a
certain style, and from a certain point of view. 5690 includes
"you don't WANT there to be a
military/technical solution to the problem."
If "the problem" is the reasonable security of the United
States - I want a set of responses, which, taken as a whole,
serve the reasonable security needs of the United States. That
has to mean responses that are consistent with the
reasonable security needs of other nations, as well. There
are, and will have to be, "military/technical" parts of
the solution. But the world is too complicated, working
systems are too fragile, and individual pieces of hardware too
inflexible, for any "military/technical solution "to
Kalter, we've made trillion dollar mistakes,
listening to arguments like the ones you make. We have to
learn to make peace - better than we've done -- in a world
where everyone really has to live along continuums of trust
Where force and reason both matter.
Not because we're naive. But because we're realistic. The
idea of an "invulnerable technical shield" is a myth.
Because there are so many ways that we are vulnerable that we
simply cannot defend against them all.
In 5697 kalter.rauch
11/13/02 4:42am yset out a rather elaborate deception
responding to 5544-6 rshow55
I responded to Kalter's grossly incorrect posting in 5702
11/13/02 6:24am . Because the plain, obvious facts I
stated may have been displeasing, there was a response that
was as close to a personal threat as you're likely to find on
these boards mazza9
11/13/02 9:58am - a response that lchic called vile
- a moderate use of words. The fact is that the US is
vulnerable. In ways that cannot be fixed by technical
gimmicks. We're safer if we know it.
We're safer if we know the bolded section of this posting,
(4 following messages)
New York Times on the Web Forums