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.
(5447 previous messages)
mazza9
- 12:01pm Nov 4, 2002 EST (#
5448 of 5452) "Quae cum ita sunt" Caesar's Gallic
Commentaries
"North Korea Says Nuclear Program Can Be Negotiated".
Robert, What is the term for a negotiation in which one
side fails to "Keep its end of the Bargain?" (REMEMBER ACTIONS
SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS!!!!!)
Only a fool would be heartened by such a circumstance. You
like to subject us to your musings about Casablanca. What
about that monumental saga, "The Godfather series?" Shall we
make them an offer they can't refuse? Question. Who is the WE
and who is the THEY? This is the real issue. Suppose North
Korea says, "Tell you what. We take back South Korea, Japan,
the Phiilipines and Vladivostok and we promise, (fingers
crossed behind back), not to nuc Anchorage.
Very heartened Robert? Does the term nuclear blackmail ring
a bell. lchic, these circumstances might be bothersome since
the fallout from this situation, (both literally and
figuratively!) would effect Australia.
Explain to us, Robert, exactly how this is a heartening
state of affairs!
rshow55
- 12:59pm Nov 4, 2002 EST (#
5449 of 5452)
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.
Mazza, while I'm working more on your question - you might
want to look at these:
2892 rshow55
7/6/02 10:42am ... 2893 rshow55
7/6/02 10:45am 2894 rshow55
7/6/02 11:08am ... 2895 rshow55
7/6/02 4:10pm
and especially this wonderful Week in Review piece:
. WORD FOR WORD / The Long Gray Line For
Tomorrow's Army, Cadets Full of Questions by SERGE
SCHMEMANN http://nytimes.com/2001/07/08/weekinreview/08SCHM.html?pagewanted=all
It seems to me that there needs to be a fight about matters
of proportion -- and about things that have been done -- and
that the ethical position in MacArthur's speech deserve
careful considation --- because they express the role of a
class that is important, but that needs to have a subordinated
role. Here is MacArthur, speaking to cadets.
" Your mission remains fixed, determined,
inviolable — it is to win our wars. All other public
purposes will find others for their accomplishment. Yours is
the profession of arms — the will to win, the sure knowledge
that in war there is no substitute for victory, that the
very obsession of your public service must be duty, honor,
country."
MacArthur spoke those words after he'd been relieved of
command by Truman -- for wanting to widen a war where he'd
already ordered the fire bombing of cities, and the
destruction of dikes, that killed more than 2 million
Koreans in the North -- almost all of them civilians.
After an enormous amount of pain and craziness - the first
thing is getting a lot of lines of communication set up
- and getting a lot of word count - so that people have
some hope of understanding and dealing with a very ugly
situation.
Expecting "totally honorable and fair dealing" from the
North Koreans (or the US) isn't to be expected. Tricks are to
be expected. Distrust is to be expected - and there's plenty
of good reason for it. That's good reason for setting up
sufficient lines of communication so that checking is
possible - - not a reason to cut contact off.
Cutting off communication until big concessions are made
(after a great deal of what is arguably gross bad faith on the
American side) is not the way to help matters. If it was, we'd
have made a lot more progress with the N. Koreans over the
last fifty years.
Things are dangerous - and that's a good reason not
to handle the communications and necessary adjustments
stupidly.
Sometimes, to be brutal is to be stupid.
Back in a while .
rshow55
- 02:25pm Nov 4, 2002 EST (#
5450 of 5452)
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.
I'll try to have something more substantial to say by 4:00
EST - but for now, since it is the day before an election - I
have a simple thought question:
Suppose voters were consulted - each given 15 minutes of
clear, factual information about the situation in N. Korea -
including some background - and asked what they would
want to happen. After thinking about it for several
minutes.
What would voters in various classifications
(male, female, Democratic, Republican) want to have happen?
The same questions, under similar conditions, might be
asked of voters in other countries.
What would they want to happen?
Those answers, even if only very rough guesses - might go
some way towards getting values and especially signs ( + or -
) straight.
Back with more by 4:00 EST.
(2 following messages)
New York Times on the Web Forums
Science
Missile Defense
|