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.

gisterme - 04:12am Mar 10, 2003 EST (# 9738 of 9743)

(9737 continued...)

One hopeful developement is that for the first time in history (the modern epoch at least), pracitcal world-wide communication exists. A picture can be worth a thousand words and sometimes a word can be worth a thousand pictures. Properly used, pictures can do a lot to help bring down the language barrier; but as is the case with words, that's only beneficial if truthful things are transmitted. In my view, the fact that we can lie to each other waters the deepest roots of our problems; yet, enigmatically, to be unable to do so would radically change the essence of our concept of individual free will.

Isn't it the chaotic nature of our interaction with each other that makes possible both our greatest acheivements and our worst horrors? Isn't that chatoic interaction the fundamental motive for rationalizing a concept of good and evil? I think so. I think I'd rather learn to deal with that than be a member of a society of all-alike ants.

Still, given all that, the thought of creating a central "one world" government is also frightening because there would have to be a boss...and sooner or later, by some means, a rotten apple would get the job. Then, who would there be to depose such a person? The only way that might work is to somehow reverse the current paradigm of allegience. Qualificaion for ascention to such a seat of power should require an oath of allegience of the Ruler(s) to serve the people rather than an oath of allegience of the people to serve the Ruler. Still, some sort of power pyramid scheme would be requred for administration, which means a representative government of some sort with decreasing levels of authority below the boss. Historically, those upper echelons have always been breeding grounds for corruption whether in democracies, republics, kingdoms, communist governments, olagarchies or imperial dictatorships. How does one separate power from temptation? Power is generally acknowledged to be a corrupting force among we humans. I think that's because power makes it easer for us as individuals to do things "the easy way"...and even when no power is involved, we humans seem to be wired in such a way that we mostly want to do things in the easiest way.

I don't think that the Roman Empire would ever have fallen without outside forces chipping away at it. It would have continuted, as it did for so long, growing more and more rotten at the top and miserable at the bottom. If there had been no "barbarians", Muslems or others, would the Roman empire have ever fallen? Would a revolution have been possible? So long as the warrior class was "above" the commoners in wealth and preveledge, and only loyal to someone above them, probably not. As happened with Rome, one rotten apple would replace another at the top, all kept afloat by taxation of the helpless poor.

All that said, and despite the many awful things that have occured throughout our history, overall, civilization and world-wide culture have somehow managed to progress and expand for the betterment of many...and there is hope that the trend will continue and extend eventually to all. The real challenge is how to manage that extension without major cave-ins. We've obviously got a long way to go...and there are no barbarians.

lchic - 07:28am Mar 10, 2003 EST (# 9739 of 9743)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

empires fall - because -

They don't manage cash flow | other more compelling empires arise | new technology advantages an opposing group | an 'empire builder' walks in on it ... and more

lchic - 07:30am Mar 10, 2003 EST (# 9740 of 9743)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Britain and the US have been forced into more concessions in their demands on Saddam Hussein in a desperate attempt to try to win over wavering countries on the UN security council. ... http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,911069,00.html

lchic - 07:38am Mar 10, 2003 EST (# 9741 of 9743)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

"" "If [American] words start muscling in on our words there is room for concern."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,910907,00.html

"" Australia is losing its unique language in a f"We don't need diapers, candy, ketchup, trash cans and fries - we've got nappies, lollies, tomato sauce, rubbish tins and chips," he said. "All we hear are Yankee phrases and we are losing our own language. America might control the world, but we must control and keep our own language."

^ .... a flood of Americanisms moving in on Australia

(2 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense