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.
(665 previous messages)
rshow55
- 11:13am Mar 18, 2002 EST (#
666 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 basic human needs, and knowing them gives a sense
of both how we are strong, and how we are fragile. And how our
enemies are strong, and how they are fragile. We are MUCH
stronger, and less fragile, than our enemies if we just play
it straight, on issues of fact and straight dealing, and do
things that make military sense. Including things needed for
effective deterrance, and effective interdiction.
The tragedy of September 11 probably wouldn't have happened
if people in the world had believed that we had usable,
flexible, calibrated, powerful deterrants. And given the
risks, interdiction as part of the mix of humanly reasonable
options can't be ruled out either.
Here are some basic, universal relationships that we need
to take into account -- and that make our opportunities clear.
Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs: Maslow's Hierarchy
of Needs by William G. Huitt Essay and Image:
http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/regsys/maslow.html
Berle's Laws of Power taken from Power by
Adolf A. Berle . . . 1969 ... Harcourt, Brace and World, N.Y.
“ The "0th" rule . . . . "Power is always
preferable to chaos. ...To control chaos, people work in
frameworks of power. According to Berle, these frameworks
are always subject to five rules, which I think are right,
and directly relavent to our nuclear peril, and the fixing
of it.
Rule One: Power invariably fills any
vacuum in human organization. ........... When
presidents neglected to give detailed attention in nuclear
policy, other people took power in that area, in a
tradition, very isolated from the American mainstream. That
group of people, as it has developed, mostly in secret, over
fifty years, now holds power. But not unquestionable power.
Rule Two: Power is invariably
personal.
Rule Three: Power is invariably based on
a system of ideas of philosophy. Absent such a system or
philosophy, the institutions essential to power cease to be
reliable, power ceases to be effective, and the power holder
is eventually displaced.
Rule Four: Power is exercised through,
and depends on, institutions. By their existence, they
limit, come to control, and eventually confer or withdraw
power.
Rule Five: Power is invariably confronted
with, and acts in the presence of, a field of
responsibility. The two constantly interact, in
hostility or co-operation, in conflict or through some form
of dialog, organized or unorganized, made part of, or
perhaps intruding into, the institutions on which power
depends.
These things are very important constraints - -
considering them simplifies things, by ruling out a good deal.
Consideration also gives a sense of what can reasonably be
done. ( What can be done at reasonable cost is a subset of
what can be explained to the world community. )
We may have to use the force we have - sometimes persuasive
force, or instititional relatins - sometimes lethal force - -
but ideas also matter. Rule three can't long be broken without
consequences.
Our ideas and ideals, when we live up to them , are
vigorous. To the extent that we're not living up to them, we
have some work to do --- not very difficult work, if faced.
The system of "ideas" that the terrorists, Iraq, and N. Korea
have, are contradictory and fragile. Iran has its logical
fragilities, too.
Those pressure points at the level of ideas can be powerful
-- they'd be overwhelmingly powerful if we had most of the
world behind us. As a nation we need to understand, more
clearly than we do, why so many in the world are not behind
us.
We may be approaching a point where the world will have to
get organized enough to make us understand some of these
things.
rshow55
- 11:15am Mar 18, 2002 EST (#
667 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.
We are looking for stable solutions, with acceptable
(minimal) risks to ourselves and others. We can't minimize
our risks without considering the needs of other people, long
term -- because other people are dangerous animals, as we are
ourselves.
MD656 rshow55
3/17/02 8:24pm
You'd think that the information in the March 13 OpEd
Advertorial http://www.tompaine.com/op_ads/opad.cfm/ID/5241
would destroy "Star Wars." You'd think that the information in
this thread, and the responses of MD system supporters would
destroy "Star Wars." But it isn't going to happen without some
more force behind it. If world leaders decided they wanted
answers clear enough -- clear enough to work in a jury trial -
they could get them. And clarity, and weight at that level is
what is warranted and needed here.
MD152-153 rshow55
3/3/02 10:56am
http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/281
http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/282
http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/283
http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/285
(17030 following messages)
New York Times on the Web Forums
Resource
Area for Forum Hosts and Moderators Missile Defense
|