New York Times on the Web Forums
Science
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.
(473 previous messages)
manjumicha2001
- 06:03pm Mar 13, 2002 EST (#474
of 484)
The intelligence of the President does matter....and the
languages of international politics and purposeful ambiguities are
cruicial tools of dimplomacy. And no doubt US has been the biggest
beneficiary of such games. I do not think however that Bush knows
how to play that game. Although his attitudes might come across as
fresh and straigtforward, popularity boosting exercises for domestic
public, I think it will seriously undermine the stategic fabric of
US stregnth in the world.
Simply put, maybe Bush is just not up to the task despite the
very skillful packaging of the political machine that is set up to
protect and embelish his leadership. I hope I am wrong on it because
the consequences of his failure as the president will have "bad"
consequences for US and the world....but can't help that sinking
feeling that Bush is manily succeeding in scaring to death the top
experts in all branches of his own government (to be differentiated
from his political appointees).
rshow55
- 06:04pm Mar 13, 2002 EST (#475
of 484)
From last year
lunarchick - 02:32pm Mar 12, 2001 EST (#957 of 963)
lunarchick@www.com
http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=sagacious
rshowalter - 02:36pm Mar 12, 2001 EST (#958 of 963) Robert
Showalter mrshowalter@thedawn.com
A central point is to see how much staff work this would take --
and take in a short time, so that closure could actually occur.
Staffing should be such that logical objections or questions
could be resolved. Resolved coherently and with intellectual dash.
In minutes or hours rather than days or weeks.
I know some staffs with that capability -- I've seen them in
action. They are the "armies" of the world's great newspapers and
other reporting organizations, with the connetions to the larger
world that these people have.
Here are some questions, that would fit the capabilities of
journalists, that might have to be adressed.
almarstel2001 - 02:44pm Mar 12, 2001 EST (#959 of 963)
http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=sagacious
Thanks, I am flatetred.
I tend to think of myself more in Kozma Prutkov's line: "If you
see a cage with a Donkey with a sign "Lion" - Dont believe your
eyes";)
(Kozma Prutkov is a name of 19th century Russian group of
playfull intellectuals. I guess, the Russian early version of
Orwellian;)
rshow55
- 06:07pm Mar 13, 2002 EST (#476
of 484)
manjumicha2001
3/13/02 6:03pm If that's true, it is a challenge - - an
intellectual and expository challenge -- but hopeful, too.
Because the things that scare intelligent Americans and
people all over the world are not in the interest of the United
States - - and it might be possible to clearly explain some key
things (for Bush and his key constituencies) to produce
better adjustments.
rshow55
- 06:10pm Mar 13, 2002 EST (#477
of 484)
From last year
rshowalter - 02:47pm Mar 12, 2001 EST (#960 of 963) Robert
Showalter mrshowalter@thedawn.com
Here are questions, well suited to large journalistic
organizations which, if well answered, could facilitate the
practical jobs peace might take. The answers would also be the basis
for good stories from a journalistic point of view. No doubt there
are many other good questions. I offer these as examples.
*************
What pictures would people have to see to understand a nuclear
standdown procedure, and judge the checkability of it?
What hostages would assure "business" leaders in Russia, and
in America?
How could they be treated, to facilitate dealings between the
two countries?
What are the “reasons” why nuclear standdown is impossible, or
unwelcome to American or Russian sides.
Aesthetic responses to nuclear terror and nuclear standdown
mechanics - Russian and American. Grace under pressure - Russian
style, American style. Entertaining hostages for month long stays.
.
Suppose a plan were fashioned that would, work, technically
and emotionally, to produce a full standdown of nuclear weapons
worldwide, over a few month time period, if well presented. How
could the plan be best presented to Americans? To Russians?
How to make nuclear standdown aesthetically attractive, and of
high status, to the stressed Americans and Russians who must do it,
and to their publics.
The aesthetics of nuclear terror, and the terror of first
strike tricks during stand-down -- means of artistic illustration to
minds and hearts of Americans and Russians.
(7
following messages)
New York Times on the Web Forums
Science
Missile Defense
|