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 - 05:45pm Dec 29, 2002 EST (# 7127 of 7132)
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.

Kim Jong Il has recently spoken of a North Korean "sacred struggle to defend the socialist system of the country."

The religious nature of the language is interesting. I don't see that any other nation has any right to criticise socialism as a general idea. But when you look at the specifics of the North Korean system - one may ask questions like the following:

Sacred in what ways?

Beautiful in what ways?

Ugly in what ways? According to what assumptions? To whom?

If Kim Jong Il can explain to other people what he sees as sacred and beautiful about his system - perhaps it is possible to negotiate to see that all that he sees as sacred and beautiful is much more secure than it is today. Perhaps. Especially if there is some effort to acknowledge, if not change, the things that seem muddled and ugly.

Can North Korea actually write down a coherent case? It would be interesting to see.

At other times, GWBush has used language somewhat similar to Kim Jong Il's language. It wouldn't be too surprising to hear President Bush speak about a "sacred struggle to defend the free enterprise system of the United States." If he did (and implicitly, it seems to me that he has) one might ask questions like the following:

Sacred in what ways?

Beautiful in what ways?

Ugly in what ways?

According to what assumptions? To whom?

If President Bush could explain to other people, all over the world, what he sees as sacred and beautiful about his system - perhaps it is possible to negotiate to see that all that he sees as sacred and beautiful is more secure than it is today. Especially if there is some effort to acknowledge, if not change, the things that seem muddled and ugly.

The United States, North Korea, and other nations participating in the dialog or watching might benefit from such clarifications.

The notion of disciplined beauty makes it possible for people who disagree about a lot to still talk to each other - and still communicate what it is that they think is good about their positions - on the basis of clear assumptions - at the same time providing room so that expressions about what is bad about their positions from other points of view can be made clear. rshow55 11/1/02 12:00pm

Once people are clear about why they disagree - and agree on what their diffferences are - they have a better chance of working things out. There are situations where, given positions that parties will not change, there has to be a fight. Usually, that can be avoided, and when it cannot - it is important to be clear what the fight is about.

From where I sit, according to assumptions I make, a lot set out in Powell Says U.S. Is Willing to Talk With Pyongyang filed at 3:47 p.m. ET http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-US-North-Korea.html is beautiful.

almarst2002 - 08:53pm Dec 29, 2002 EST (# 7128 of 7132)

Lessons from the fall of an empire - http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1039524021167&p=1012571727085

almarst2002 - 09:05pm Dec 29, 2002 EST (# 7129 of 7132)

MOSCOW - Russia has accused the US-led consortium in charge of energy projects in North Korea of triggering a crisis over nuclear inspections there by breaking an agreement on energy supplies for Pyongyang. - http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/asia/story/0,4386,163000,00.html

North Korea was promised oil and nuclear power stations in return for freezing its plutonium-based nuclear arms programme under a 1994 agreement with a grouping of the United States, the European Union, Japan and South Korea known as Kedo.

'The main conflict here is linked to the fact that Kedo countries have not fulfilled duties they promised to,' said Russia's Atomic Energy Minister, Mr Alexander Rumyantsev.

(3 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense