New York Times on the Web Forums
Resource
Area for Forum Hosts and Moderators
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.
(10290 previous messages)
rshow55
- 07:27am Mar 21, 2003 EST (#
10291 of 17697) 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.
There are unintended consequences - often mixed with
intended consequences - and I'm feeling hopeful. I
think Almarst is making fine, important points in a
well focused fashion, and Gisterme is, as well. ( For
the record: Just now, I don't take back a single negative
thing I've ever said about Gisterme . )
This thread includes some fine writing - and fredmoore's
9426 of Mar 3, 2003 seems worth reposting. Fredmoore's
story involves consequences, and coupled effects. Willy Hoppe,
the great billiards artist, would have appreciated the story.
http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.DDr1b0YuYGb.1129834@.f28e622/10965
I think Bush is doing some things, tactically and
strategically - that make practical and moral sense - but I
surely have an unusual perspective. When I was a kiddie, I got
into more than 100 fights - more than 20 of which involved
people threatening me with knives- when they had cutlery, and
I didn't. I wasn't a very good diplomat, or I wouldn't have
been so agressive - but even so, I didn't see very many
alternatives that I, as I was, could get to work. I learned a
great deal about pre-emption - its uses and limits at that
time - and have done a lot of thinking about it since - some
at Bill Casey's direction. Bush seems to know some key things
about the uses and limits of pre-emption. Enough, I hope - and
just now it looks like he does know enough.
Sometimes I've written poems to try to make simple points -
and lchic collected some at 2599 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.DDr1b0YuYGb.1129834@.f28e622/3237
Chain Breakers http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee79f4e/618
In Clear rshowalter "Science News Poetry" 2/14/01
7:18am http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.DDr1b0YuYGb.1129834@.f1983fb/409
Learning to Stand http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee79f4e/1345
Secular Redemption http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee79f4e/1345
Especially Secular Redemption http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee79f4e/1345
We need to lie less - to send in clear more often -
especially when it matters. And be more matter-of-fact at
spotting deceptions, too. That's all we'd need to do a great
deal better than we're doing - we have a mess - not beyond
redemption - but redemption is what is needed. Facing up to
what has happened, and what's been done, is what people need
to do. Some key people may actually be so upset that they're
forced to think straight - with less deception and self
deception than usual, and more checking.
A lot of people who have backed Saddam, and said "no war -
ever - under any circumstances" - ought to think hard
about consequences.
I think things are going very well so far.
There's a good chance that we can take the incidence of
agony and death from war way down from where it has
been - and do it soon.
rshow55
- 08:59am Mar 21, 2003 EST (#
10292 of 17697) 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.
Here's a fascinating story. It says a lot about power -
predictability - and the stability of deals under
circumstances that are intolerably messy and compromised.
Turkey Delays Opening Airspace to U.S. By THE
ASSOCIATED PRESS Filed at 7:50 a.m. ET http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Turkey-US-Iraq.html
I hope the war can be won, and it won, cleanly, without
making any unreasonable compromises whatsoever with the Turks
- and certainly without betraying the interests of the Kurds.
I worked very hard on these postings, and I'm proud of
them: 10274 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.DDr1b0YuYGb.1129834@.f28e622/11820
to 10276 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.DDr1b0YuYGb.1129834@.f28e622/11822
In 10275-10276 there's this:
Things sort themselves out into levels - the
image in Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs by William G. Huitt
Essay and Image : http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/regsys/maslow.html
is a clear, important, and general example of a heirarchical
system with controls and interfaces of mutual constraint.
The generally pyramidal organization is general to
essentially all such structures that work.
Look at the picture.
In ordinary business, politics and war there
are times when groups that function as assemblies have to be
dealt with as they are grouped - as assemblies. People have
to act from where they are. If you're near the top of the
pyramid in a logical sense, that's what you have to do.
You're Bush - or Putin - or any other leader
- or a responsible subordinate - like Casey. You have to
make decisions - and there are times when there is no option
at all but to "play God" - either by actions with
consequences - or by inaction under circumstances where
inaction also has consequences.
People can only do as well as they possibly
can - with mistakes expected, insensitivities expected,
biases expected, even for the best of people because they
are people.
But people have to be responsible for what they do -
in every way - both because they control events, and because
they don't.
(7405 following messages)
New York Times on the Web Forums
Resource
Area for Forum Hosts and Moderators Missile Defense
|