Russian military leaders have expressed concern about US plans
for a national missile defense system. Will defense technology be
limited by possibilities for a strategic imbalance? Is this just SDI
all over again?
Once these questions were answered, it would be much harder for
objectors to say "we can't do it" without giving coherent
reasons.
The sort of reasons they now lack, and don't feel obligated to
set forward.
*******
If these issues were clearly adressed and widely discussed, the
forces of fraud would be close to defenseless.
Swing 20 votes in the U.S. Senate, and 100 votes in the House,
and the current conspiracy is dead, for all its money and all its
power.
That could save the world.
And remove terrible and unjust burdens from nation states.
And set the stage for a much more just, more secure, more
prosperous world.
The attempt might also be fun.
rshowalter
- 02:55pm Mar 12, 2001 EST (#963
of 963) 
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu
Suppose that open dialog had the rule that ALL written
correspondence would be available on the internet, and the agreement
that all significant points be written, even though verbal
conversation might be available, too?
If some nation state wished to monitor conversations on this
subject matter with people of "hostile" powers, if the conversation
was above board, why shouldn't this be permitted (especially if the
conversations were also taped.)
And suppose that responsible American politicans and military
people were invited, by name, to participate, and asked questions
publicaly?
Perhaps Henry Kissenger and "graduates" of his shop could be
invited especially, and urged to give answers.
The President of Iran, who has written some very good speeches,
might be a very good person to include, as well. If Americans
have some very good questions to ask of him, about funding
terrorists, he might have some very good questions of us,
about our threats of first use of nuclear weapons, and about our
"nuclear leadership" in general.
Terrorists justify their actions, most often, by saying "if the
US can use nuclear weapons, then we can do anything." -- they have a
point.
Some video media people might take some interest, as well.
It wouldn't be beyond the wit of man to get controversies on
questions of fact umpired. I've suggested a way of doing that, which
may be too ornate, but which would work as a pattern, some while ago
If any of this were secret, there might be a problem. But if
the objective is getting at the truth, on a matter of life and
death, with internet usages as they are, there's no reason that it
couldn't work.
![[F]](../_images/site.gif)
New York Times on the Web Forums 
Science
Missile Defense
Enter your response, then click the POST MY MESSAGE
button below.
See the quick-edit
help for more information.
