New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

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 Thursday.

rshow55 - 10:15pm Dec 26, 2002 EST (# 7060 of 7064)
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.

Hi, almarst! Or some other things. . . . was about to post this:

How many lives are leaders willing to sacrifice - among their own people -and in other nations - to save themselves the pain and responsibility of talking to each other ? Or to save themselves the pain and responsibility of taking positions in public? If not face to face, with their faces showing?

Telephone calls are now trivially cheap. Video connections aren't all that hard - and video records are easy. Digital movies are a commonplace. These days, I'm buying 200 meg of internet space for less than $10/month.

The old idea of duals between champions, as an alternative to war, is archaic - though Saddam raised the issue recently. Leadership isn't a physical test anymore. And leaders, who may be casual about the blood of soldiers and children, may be exceedingly careful of their own. Maybe rightly so.

But what about just talking, in public, where people could hear what they say, and watch them saying it?

Why can't Bush call Saddam (or at least try, and put the attempt on the internet for all to see.) ? Why can't Saddam call Kim, or vice-versa? Why can't leaders of many of the United Nations talk to each other - making their positions clear - with their faces showing?

Under conditions where there is record of what was said that makes full human sense - where facial expressions (hard to fake under pressure) are there for people to see.

It might be painful. But a lot might clarify, in short order.

For one thing, if the leaders seemed too stupid and incoherent to hold a meaningful conversation, or answer direct questions - soldiers and citizens might hesitate to follow them blindly. They might ask some questions themselves.

For another, real disagreements might become clear. And real muddles might be plainly shown to be muddles - for all to see.

Talk isn't cheap. But these days, where so many power-holders are prepared to risk so many lives of other people so casually - more talk ought to be expected.

We are facing soluble problems here, and muddling things that ought to be simple much too often.

2645- 46 lchic 6/20/02 8:27pm

rshow55 - 10:21pm Dec 26, 2002 EST (# 7061 of 7064)
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.

I've been trying to Send in clear rshowalter "Science News Poetry" 2/14/01 7:18am for a long time. The poem of rshowalter "Science News Poetry" 2/14/01 7:18am ends with this note:

In clear: Lying is more dangerous than people think, and soaks up more attention than people know. We can do less of it. We can send in clear - the message, almost always, will be peaceful. And complex cooperation, now so often terminated with deceptive sequences, could happen more often.

Lying is quite a lot harder to do, and more dangerous to do, when people are watching. And so statements made where people can watch faces and responses are more credible -especially when subject to questions. We ought to think HARD about using technical means, now so easily available, as an aid in resolving international agreements. George Bush, or any other leader, should be prepared to do a lot of talking to other leaders, in public, before he gives up on international law and negotiation and gives orders that kill American and others, many of them innocent of any personal wrong.

MD7000 rshow55 12/24/02 5:24pm

There are times when only direct approaches can possibly work. Though indirectness has its uses, too.

out.

almarst2002 - 10:23pm Dec 26, 2002 EST (# 7062 of 7064)

While the U.S. government publicly denounces the use of torture, each of the current national security officials interviewed for this article defended the use of violence against captives as just and necessary. - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37943-2002Dec25.html

almarst2002 - 10:31pm Dec 26, 2002 EST (# 7063 of 7064)

"leader, should be prepared to do a lot of talking to other leaders, in public, before he gives up on international law and negotiation and gives orders that kill American and others, many of them innocent of any personal wrong."

Yes!

(1 following message)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense