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 - 08:35pm Feb 20, 2003 EST (# 9141 of 9164)
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.

When the Cold War ended, we didn't have an end game. A lot of things have gone far worse than we might have hoped - with fewer good things, and more horror than might have occurred.

American bureacracies have behaved like bureacracies - at times when one might have hoped for more. There has been plenty of ugliness and loss.

All the same - the United States works as well as it does in human terms (very well compared to other countries) - and it is making efforts, within bureaucratic patterns - to be reasonable - and reasonably public spirited.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was on The News Hour tonight - - and had to handle some tough questions. He was an effective, reasonably open, careful, competent negotiating politician - and acted with real care and concern for the opinions not only of Americans - but other nations, as well.

That doesn't mean he's not wrong, or has priorities out of balance by some reasonable standards. But he's a long way from being a villian or a monster - and a long way from being inflexible in negotiation - within his role as head of the Department of Defense.

Rumsfeld was a pains to hope publicly that the situation in Iraq could be resolved without war - and did not seem at all casual about the human consequences.

The point isn't that people necessarily ought to agree with him. I don't always do so - though I think we might agree on a good deal.

The point is that at a time where international relations and laws are evolving - and have to evolve - the United States remains both a competent power - and one which professes, and really has - a lot of very humane ideals - among other ideas, patterns, and committments. And a government full of people who negotiate - and are committed to the process of negotiation - so long as they are dealing with "reasonable people" - people who, in their view, have a place at the table.

They might find ways to be more inclusive - and build more bridges - but they do have lines of communication, and bridges, very often.

However dismissive Rumsfeld may have been to France and Germany in other statements - on The News Hour he was at pains to be respectful to them - and respectful of their differences of opinion with his.

rshow55 - 08:36pm Feb 20, 2003 EST (# 9142 of 9164)
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.

When National Security Adviser Rice wrote this, I believe she wrote something profound and hopeful. I think Rumsfeld was doing his best to try to help make it true.

" Today, the international community has the best chance since the rise of the nation-state in the seventeenth century to build a world where great powers compete in peace instead of continually prepare for war. . . . . . The United States will build on these common interests to promote global security. " " The National Security Strategy of the United States," http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/20/politics/20STEXT_FULL.html . page 2.

Rumsfeld was obviously concerned about stability - damping - some of the back-and-forthing that "dithers" - that keeps dialogs from locking up. He also knew he faced a complex, painful, uncertain set of choices.

Rumsfeld isn't always politic - but he understands some of the key things Franklin D. Roosevelt wrote shortly before his death:

" Today, we are faced with the pre-eminent fact that, if civilization is to survive, we must cultivate the science of human relationships --- the ability of all peoples, of all kinds, to live together and work together in the same world, at peace."

Rumsfeld was trying to cultivate human relationships on the News Hour today. Perhaps with a level of sincerity that almarst might doubt - but putting out real effort.

International relations and international law are being renegotiated . It seems to me that if we find ways to get facts straight - and if leaders of other nations also take positions that they actually believe, and can actually be proud of - a lot might sort out well.

lchic - 01:10am Feb 21, 2003 EST (# 9143 of 9164)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

When Op-Ed Economist writer Krugman wrote this I believe he had something profound to say

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/21/opinion/21KRUG.html

(21 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense