New York Times on the Web Forums Resource Area for Forum Hosts and Moderators

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.

commondata - 02:55pm Dec 11, 2002 EST (# 6485 of 17697)

mazza9 12/11/02 1:47pm - In today's world if we are to establish peace and tranquility then someone has to take on the parenting role. The UN has failed in this respect. It ignores the human rights violations that are occurring in Africa and yet finds Israel guilty of racism! The Iraq issue is a no brainer and yet a 17th resolution was needed to communicate to Iraq it's non compliance with the first 16 resolutions regarding their invasion of a soverign nation were not heeded to.

This whole paragraph stands testament to the error of rshow's repeated optimism. The UN is not a democratic organisation - the big powers want and get monopoly and it's they you should blame for any failures you percieve. And if you want to talk about hipocracy, Mazza, why do you worry about Yemen's 12 old scuds but not object to the US selling nearly a billion dollars' worth of military equipment to another 12th century social system in Saudi Arabia? I've just read through the list of weapons that the USA exported in 2001 - the file was 4.6 megabytes.

During the two and a half years of this thread, militarism increased, inequality increased, dependence on oil remained total, civil liberties suffered, ecological degradation continued at pace, a crazy cult declared war on the Western world, the "missile defense idea" is spreading and growing, and we never did quite manage to get rid of nukes by Christmas 2000, did we rshow?

rshow55 - 03:14pm Dec 11, 2002 EST (# 6486 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.

During the two and a half years of this thread, militarism increased, inequality increased, dependence on oil remained total, civil liberties suffered, ecological degradation continued at pace, a crazy cult declared war on the Western world, the "missile defense idea" is spreading and growing, and we never did quite manage to get rid of nukes by Christmas 2000, did we rshow?

I don't see it quite that way - though I can't dispute your points entirely, either. I'm feeling optimistic, even after reading your paragraph. Let me repeat a very optimistic set of posts, for background - and then get back to the indented paragraph above - point for point.

rshow55 - 03:15pm Dec 11, 2002 EST (# 6487 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.

I think a lot of things have gone well this year, and I'd like to repost this - where Lunarchick and I say things that still seem right, and on track:

- - - - -

5441 rshow55 11/1/02 12:23pm

In negotiations going on, in rearrangements and adjustments that are going on, we want reasonable endings - good endings, endings as happy as we can make them.

. How a Story is Shaped. http://www.fortunecity.com/lavendar/ducksoup/555/storyshape.html

For that to be possible, we need to find shared space - shared understandings.

. A Communication Model http://www.worldtrans.org/TP/TP1/TP1-17.HTML

For entirely hard-headed and practical reasons, and other reasons, we need to be able to communicate as human beings. That means, for the highest levels of function (which can be practically essential) that we have to be able to find ways to communicate at the level of our separate aesthetics .

Results on the basis of one set of assumptions or values may be beautiful - - and the very same result may be ugly in terms of another set of values and assumptions.

If the values and assumtions are clear - these things can be discussed, and arrangements can be negotiated - even when feelings are very different.

According to almost all standards, muddle is ugly.

The beauty or ugliness of a treaty, or any other arrangement, can be judged in terms of the context it was built for, and other contexts, including the context provided by data not previously considered.

As negotiations proceed - questions of what is ugly, and what is beautiful, in specific terms, can be very useful. Definition and discussion of these questions can avoid muddle, and produce arrangements that can be understood, remembered, and worked with for long times - in the face of the stresses, strains, and unforseen circumstances that have to be expected. MD5437 rshow55 11/1/02 8:40am

It seems to me that the Security Council, and the nations involved, have a chance to make the world a more beautiful place than it is today in very practical, specific, and important ways.

When the people involved have strong emotional feelings - strong aesthetic feelings - that is practically important - and to adress the reasons for those feelings - it seems to me that the formality of "disciplined beauty" described above, can be useful.

lchic 5442 lchic 11/1/02 2:06pm ~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Showalter predicting 2002 as a DIPLOMATIC MILESTONE

correction ...

' a beautiful diplomatic milestone '

_ _ _ _ _ _

It seems to me that if things unfold as they have been since November 1 - that may turn out to be true. I hope so. 6460 rshow55 12/11/02 12:21pm

People don't have to become either geniuses or saints for us to work out much better solutions than we have now.

(11210 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Resource Area for Forum Hosts and Moderators Missile Defense