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?

rshowalter - 05:55am Oct 7, 2001 EST (#10181 of 10204)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

If the Talaban are being stupid and ugly about sexual relations (and they surely are) --- we are being stupid and ugly about some basic power relations

. . . and our mistakes could end the world.

I worry a good deal about that, these days.

rshowalter - 05:58am Oct 7, 2001 EST (#10182 of 10204)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

The way to find decent, workable balances is to consider them, in real detail , get a sense of priorities in the FULL situation , and start applying weights. Then, looking at consequences, over some time, usually in small increments - it often makes sense to adjust the weights.

Not very often, but sometimes, you need a reframing because a situation has become messy and expensive "beyond redemption." . . Which means that redemption for what matters requires a change in something that was previously considered fixed, and "sacrosanct."

rshowalter - 06:01am Oct 7, 2001 EST (#10183 of 10204)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

I'm in a mess where, imho, the New York Times is acting, in ways that matter, much too much like the Talaban.

And my own (partly, but not entirely selfish) judgement is that there will be very heavy costs, including unnecessary death, unless some weights are readjusted.

rshowalter - 06:01am Oct 7, 2001 EST (#10184 of 10204)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Not that I'm against chaperones, necessarily.

rshowalter - 06:12am Oct 7, 2001 EST (#10185 of 10204)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

A time comes where there is no substitute for trust -- and limits on it that involve some limited checking, for reasons justifying the cost of the checking.

And we're well past the time when judgement is indispensible.

This is a joke: consider it as such.

We have "days" for things we value.

We have "memorial day"; "labor day" ; "secretary's day"; "groundhog day"; days that commemorate birthdays - - why not

..... "Judgement day "

. . . ?

We could use more appreciation of judgement. We should show better judgement. If we did show some better judgement, on some key things -- that would be worthy of celebration. Maybe celebration with a national day -- " judgement day."

We could have it every year.

Just a thought. Not the only thought that occurs to me, on related issues, but a sort of "reframing" thought that might be entertaining.

rshowalter - 06:45am Oct 7, 2001 EST (#10186 of 10204)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

possumdag 10/6/01 10:57pm

On restoring the status of women. Some things, in some cultures, are NOT negotiable. Men in islamic countries, notably Afghanistan, are NOT going to be workably comfortable taking any significant chance that the children they call their own are sired by someone else.

Lots of things are changeable, from where people are. That isn't. Not now. Not soon.

There is a technical solution. As I read the record in its entirety (and it has been a while, and I could be wrong) Mohammed the man (not his interpreters) would have approved. He knew the need to change with the times, and advised people that they might, after due thought about consequences, take advantage of what was available.

If women in Islamic countries are to be given very much more freedom -- and they need much more freedom -- then genetic testing for paternity needs to be standard. And if a the fetus is not sired by the proper father, then abortion -- or infanticide - or sending childeren away for adoption, has to be permitted.

Dawn Riley and I put a thread on the Guardian discussing that: "Should men pay for bastards" - - and though it has been down for months, I'm thinking about reposting it.

In the Islamic circumstance, this seems to me to be a MUCH more satisfactory solution, considering everything, than the one they have in place now.

I know that some others will disagree. But it seems to me that if they carefully looked at consequences in the full situations actually involved, they might come to agree.

11111pbh - 07:41am Oct 7, 2001 EST (#10187 of 10204)

Tajikistan seems a logical ally for tactical action. Shared borders with the Northen alliance and a Pro-russian regime, and weak economy mean we could successfully help them economically while they offer a key geographical position. It's too bad Tajikistan is not on Rumsfelds itinerary, but maybe they're a sure bet. But ethnic divisions will prove to be the trickeist element in Afghan politics. This is my suggestion:

Look past current Afghan borders. Who constructed them, the Brittish? Look how well their border forming has worked in Africa. Afghanistan is a ethnic "salad bowl", not a melting pot. Is it possible to focus on new borders for the weak state, or would that just create Kashmire like problems?

(17 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense