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.

almarst2002 - 03:51pm Dec 14, 2002 EST (# 6605 of 6649)

Decoding Some Top Buzz Words of 2002 - http://www.fair.org/media-beat/021212.html

"Pre-emptive" This adjective represents a kind of inversion of the Golden Rule: "Do violence onto others just in case they might otherwise do violence onto you." Brandished by Uncle Sam, we're led to believe that's a noble concept.

"Weapons of mass destruction" They're bad unless they're good. Globally, the U.S. government leads the way with thousands of unfathomably apocalyptic nuclear weapons. (Cue the media cheers.) Regionally, in the Middle East, only Israel has a nuclear arsenal -- estimated at 200 atomic warheads -- currently under the control of Ariel Sharon, who has proven to be lethally out of control on a number of occasions. (Cue the media shrugs.) Meanwhile, the possibility that Saddam Hussein might someday develop any such weapons is deemed to be sufficient reason to launch a war. (Cue the Pentagon missiles.)

"International community" Honorary members include any and all nations that are allied with Washington or accede to its policies. Other governments are evil rogue states.

"International law" This is the political equivalent of Play Dough, to be shaped, twisted and kneaded as needed. No concept is too outlandish, no rationalization too Orwellian when a powerful government combines with pliant news media. Few members of the national press corps are willing to question the basics when the man in the Oval Office issues the latest pronouncement about international behavior. It's a cinch that fierce condemnation would descend on any contrary power that chooses to do as we do and not as we say.

"Terrorism" The hands-down winner of the rhetorical sweepstakes for 2002, this word aptly condemns as reprehensible the killing of civilians, but the word is applied quite selectively rather than evenhandedly. When the day comes that news outlets accord the life of a Palestinian child the same reverence as the life of an Israeli child, we'll know that media coverage has moved beyond craven mediaspeak to a single standard of human rights.

Although you wouldn't know it from U.S. media coverage, 80 percent of the Palestinians killed in recent months by the Israeli Defense Force during curfew enforcement were children, according to an October report from the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem. Twelve people under the age of 16 had been killed, with dozens more wounded by Israeli gunfire in occupied areas, during a period of four months. "None of those killed endangered the lives of soldiers," B'Tselem said.

Closer to home, in less dramatic ways, the concept of "human rights" melts away when convenient. Even an assiduous reader of the U.S. press would be surprised to run across some key provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations more than 50 years ago and theoretically in force today. For instance, the document declares without equivocation that "everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favorable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment."

Perhaps the Universal Declaration passage least likely to succeed with U.S. news media appears in Article 25: "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and the necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control."

almarst2002 - 04:01pm Dec 14, 2002 EST (# 6606 of 6649)

Welcome to Down Under! - http://english.pravda.ru/main/2002/12/14/40791.html

“Those, who wish to go to Australia, those, who are attracted to extreme emigration, should know that you will have to live in the city of Adelaide. If you write in a questionnaire that you are given in the Australian embassy in Moscow that you would like to travel to Sydney or Melbourne, your request will be most likely denied. Also, you might be provided with the information that those people, who wish to go to Adelaide, get more scores, when their questionnaires are considered in an embassy. This is a particularly pragmatic approach: to fill up the losses of the population due to the fact that people (presumably the youth) leave Adelaide. You go there, they go from there!

Speaking about Australia on the whole and about Adelaide in particular. The Australian ideology is based on functionalism. The textbook entitled “The New Sociology For Australians” was written by Australian women, it was published and edited in the country several times. The book is completely devoted to Australia only. The point of this ideology is the comparison that is drawn between the organization of a human society and a human body. For example, something should think, not work, something should work, not think, something should be responsible for all that and so on. Any changes in the social and economic structure of the Australian society are considered to be changes in a functioning human body: undesirable disorders or illnesses.

The efficiency of this ideology can be seen from the following fact. Australia’s foreign debt is more than Russia’s. It should be also mentioned here that Australia has the 19 million strong population, vs. 140 million strong population of Russia. Russia’s foreign debt decreases, whereas Australia’s debt grows.

“Australian statistic reports do not mention the information about the number of Australian people, who live below the poverty line. Probably, this is a state secret. So, before leaving for Australia, please think, if you are ready to accept this ideology.

(43 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense