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?

Read Debates, a new Web-only feature culled from Readers' Opinions, published every Thursday.

almarst-2001 - 06:23pm Mar 3, 2002 EST (#168 of 180)

I think, yes. Unless the President's power and US foreign policy comes to public scruteny. Which I see no ways of coming. Why would a public be interested in results of US foreign policy? What are the stakes? Unless some terrible disuster abroad will cause such a calamity or loss at home that it will cause a dramatic change in the attitudes.

Unfortunatly, it may well be, the PAIN is the most effective in not the only LEARNING TOOL.

rshow55 - 06:37pm Mar 3, 2002 EST (#169 of 180)

Public scrutiny is becoming a more and more feasible goal.

You ask

Why would a public be interested in results of US foreign policy?

What are the stakes?

These things have to be explained.

Explained effectively.

If some real world leaders wanted to make progress here -- it would happen pretty directly.

We talked, last year, about things that would be quite practical -- if world leaders actually wanted some things sorted out.

rshow55 - 06:48pm Mar 3, 2002 EST (#170 of 180)

Just a thought for a happy ending, based on the pattern in How a Story is Shaped http://www.fortunecity.com/lavendar/ducksoup/555/storyshape.html

Status Quo . . .
Initial Problem . . .
Exposition . . .
Complications . . .
Crisis . . . A superpower out of hand - - with plenty of muddle and danger.

Climax boom, crash -- . . . A few world leaders say, in public, "this is an intolerable mess -- there are muddles here -- we want the key facts and relations sorted out -- staffed to closure -- beyond question . . ."

to be continued .

Denouement . . .
Description of New Status Quo . . .
New Status Quo

I think some pretty satisfactory resolutions would occur, pretty naturally, once there was enough "news value" for public scrutiny -- along with formats that were able to handle the logical problems involved.

rshow55 - 06:52pm Mar 3, 2002 EST (#171 of 180)

There would have to be public interest that could be sustained -- and one thing that requires is patterns where people who want to be interested can see things in enough coordination, together, to draw conclusions.

Things have to be presented in ways people can actually understand. And when there are inconsistencies - - there have to be ways of showing them, and showing evidence that people can understand, regarding those inconsistencies.

With good enough illustrations that key points can be "seen" in the literal, visual sense.

A central point is that things have to "match up" that are now fragmented -- because too seperated in space and time.

Often, fragmented because there are people motivated to keep them fragmented -- and procedures and "traditions" that keep them fragmented.

Ways of misinforming and muddling public opinion that Thomas Jefferson and the other founding fathers never dreamed of have become powerful. Mostly they rest on techniques of fragmentation - burying information in distacting detail, and isolating people.

. Hitler went unchecked.

We have to learn to do better now. We can.

We know a lot about how to do it now . . . and have seen a lot that could be modified to be workable . . seen it here.

almarst-2001 - 07:05pm Mar 3, 2002 EST (#172 of 180)

"world leaders"

What drives most of the World Leaders:

1. Personal EGO and desire to be loved, admired and elected again - primerely in so called Democtatic societies.

2. Ideology - primerely in so called non-Democratic societies.

3. Patriotism/Nazionalism - quite universally. But undermines the coalition.

What is at stakes to stand-up against a world dominating power?

1. Economic, political and even military pressure.

2. Direct bribary, refusing of wich harts their personal well-being.

3. Nation-wide bribary (like seen in Serbia).

4. Fear to be left along by closed-door deals between superpower and other coalition powers - "Divide and Conquer".

As I see it, only the common ideology can bring a sustanable efectively counteracting coalition. Or the common wide-spread fear and tread.

Which lets the US to flexibly select a partner for a mission just to be declared a foe later on. As was a case with Iraq and Afganistan. As is now with Iran. As wery likely will be with many others.

almarst-2001 - 07:08pm Mar 3, 2002 EST (#173 of 180)

"With good enough illustrations that key points can be "seen"

For the vast majority, the eyes are the mass media. Which, in my view, is at best inefficient and, most likely, purely self-serving and corrupted.

almarst-2001 - 07:17pm Mar 3, 2002 EST (#174 of 180)

I have a very little expectations for the things to turn better untill I see a change in the ways of mass-media. Which, if extends some criticizm, does so on a partisan way. When Clinton admin. commited its war crimes, the "liberal" wing of media was quite supportive. while the conservative, save Pat Bucanan, complained his pinches are just too week. Now, with Bush, they seem to act differently.

Where are the PRINCIPLES, the IDEAS? How many anti-war activists have you seen or hear on the radio or TV?

(6 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense