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.

rshow55 - 03:39pm Feb 28, 2003 EST (# 9364 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 social animals, and whatever your theology may happen to be, "a little lower than the angels." Look at Pritchard's notes on Milgram's experiment - and on Jonestown - to get a sense of how wrong it feels, for most people, to go against authority. http://www.uwinnipeg.ca/~epritch1/social98a.html

We ought to think about the behavior set out in http://www.uwinnipeg.ca/~epritch1/social98a.html and realize that if we're "wired to be nice" - that is - to be cooperative - that same wiring, without learned exception handling, also makes us "wired to be self deceptive and stupid" whenever the immediate thought seems to go against our cooperative needs.

Once that fact is recognized - - we can sort out a great deal - if we realize that when things are going wrong enough we have to expect ourselves, and expect others - to actually face up to facts and circumstances that feels bad - - so that we can get past messes - and end up with much more agreeable solutions overall.

Some force has to be involved, or ought to be. Combined with a recognition that we are all capable of the kinds of self-deception and imperfect behavior on display now, in sad detail, in some of the doings of NASA, the FBI, and other groups of people.

Sometimes there has to be a fight. Things have to be settled. If we could more effectively force agreement about facts and relations - and there are ways to do that would be in the interest of all decent people - less of those fights would have to be bloody, there would be fewer fights - and people could be much more agreeable overall. By facing the necessity face up to the disagreeable from time to time - we could get past a lot of it, rather than stay stuck.

Negotiations at the Security Council might be extremely useful in this regard - not only with respect to Iraq - but historically. I think it would be both just and practical to force the United States government to face some facts, practical and sometimes moral - that we've been lying about.

It would be easier to get (partly persuade, partly force) Iraq and N. Korea to reform if we were partly persuaded, partly forced, to do so ourselves. (Since our faults are relatively so small, in our own estimation - it should be easy for us. )

Procedures set out in http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/296 and many times on this thread could work out all the logic needed to do that effectively. It would take some money - and the backing of some people with legitimacy - and would require that some logic - much like the logic at NASA that evaded responsibility about the shuttle accident - would be forced into the open. It wouldn't take long before a great deal got clearer - to the benefit of practically everybody, once things worked themselves out.

lchic - 04:41pm Feb 28, 2003 EST (# 9365 of 17697)
ultimately TRUTH outs : TRUTH has to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong foundation

1963 CIA killed DEMOCRACY theVoice ofThe People in Iraq

http://www.greenleft.org.au/

See also LINKS

(8332 following messages)

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