![[F]](../_images/site.gif) New York Times on the Web Forums  Science
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?
    (1456 previous messages)
rshowalter
- 05:56pm Mar 24, 2001 EST (#1457
of 1463) 
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu
Perhaps an incremental approach dealing with the details of A
PERFECT TEST CASE set out by NYT reporter Nina
Bernstein would be most beautiful of all. rshowalter
3/24/01 7:40am
But there are likely to be MANY beautiful possibilities, and
people of good faith willing to pursue them.
lunarchick
- 06:23pm Mar 24, 2001 EST (#1458
of 1463)
lunarchick@www.com
Noted the ref to ER, MT, Putin. ER might have more commonality
with the later than with MT.
Russia was in VR's range of influence, as was Germany pre WWI.
Which made it all the more difficult to understand why and how the
breakdowns that lead to WW difficulties arose.
There will be a lot of Russian artefacts dusted daily by ER from
old associations of Great Uncles. ER's former Master of The Arts has
close associations with Russia during the cold war - while Pinewood
churned out OO7 for consumption by the British masses. On this basis
of reciprocity I would think that ER would be pleased to assist
Russia home and into the EC fold.
The logic of royal celebrity is how to do the 'most' in a
synergetic helpful manner, activating and involving others, yet
providing a pivotal focus.
Were ER to learn to appreciate the possible targeting of a royal
corgi by an MD factor, she would come actively engaged in lessening
this threat. Additionally, she might beseech and command of a
descendant of a former GIII subject to hot-link her site forthwith!
lunarchick
- 06:35pm Mar 24, 2001 EST (#1459
of 1463)
lunarchick@www.com
May be detracting here, but, two factors come to mind. One is the
matching of provision for daycare of children with demand. This is
done best by Scandianvian Countries .. who in turn are secure to
produce a 'replacement' population. Elsewhere daycare provision is
lower, in the UK only 15% .. resulting in wimmin deferring children
and and ultimately not having them. In some countries the demand for
wimmin to hold down jobs (with out care assistance) leads to
children moving into 'care'.
The reality is that the provision of care from foster families is
'an act of love' in that the allowances do not accommodate the
special need$ such children bring with them.
The crisis of 'any care at all' requirements is becoming the
factor .... it may result from the failure of governments generally
to 'care' for the people and their needs within its own system.
With regards to 'Religious' organisations taking on a civic and
indoctrinational role .. rather than civic bodies being equipt to
the task .. in the USA -- my guess is that such indoctrinated
children might later employ lawyers to sue with regards to the
'invasion' and 'religious-psycho-positioning' of their minds.
Where do ethics end and religions start, what are the boundaries
between secular/civic and 'religious' ?
lunarchick
- 06:38pm Mar 24, 2001 EST (#1460
of 1463)
lunarchick@www.com
I might add that here there is a shortage of 'carers' and 'foster
families' ... and many children who are wards of the State are in a
continual state of flux with neither a settled living stituation nor
identity.
rshowalter
- 07:30pm Mar 24, 2001 EST (#1461
of 1463)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu
Forthwith !
******
Negotiations and social-political-economic contacts involving
"status exchange" are not well handled by Russia, and this means
that Russia is continuously outmaneauvered, and excluded from
complex cooperations, where status exchange functions are involved.
This can mean exclusion from the mainstream of European life,
whenever adversaries choose it to mean that.
The Queen's role may be "purely ceremonial" -- purely concerned
with issues of status. But these issues matter, the Queen is a very
able, hardworking person, and if Putin and his staff had command of
the usages needed to speak comfortably and productively to the Queen
and her staff, they'd have skills that could be important in
innumerable ways of use to their state and the cause of peace.
THE QUEEN'S ROLE IN THE MODERN STATE http://www.royal.gov.uk/today/role.htm
the Queen and the Prime Minister http://www.royal.gov.uk/today/pm.htm
The Queen's influence is mainly informal. She has
a right and a duty to express her views on government matters to
the Prime Minister at their weekly audiences, but these meetings -
and all communications between the Monarch and her Government -
remain strictly confidential. Having expressed her views, The
Queen abides by the advice of her Ministers.
the Queen and Privy Council http://www.royal.gov.uk/today/privyc.htm
There are 400 Privy Councillors, consisting of all
members of the Cabinet, a number of middle-ranking government
ministers, leaders of the opposition parties in both Houses of
Parliament, senior judges and some appointments from the
Commonwealth.
the Queen and the law/judiciary http://www.royal.gov.uk/today/law.htm
the Queen and the Armed Services http://www.royal.gov.uk/today/services.htm
The monarch is Head of the Armed Forces and it is
the monarch alone who can declare war and peace. . . . . . The
monarch's powers today cannot be exercised except upon the advice
of responsible Ministers.
When the British serving military reminds itself
that it is in service of the Queen, it is saying something that
matters a great deal, to all involved.
 (2 following messages)
  
 
New York Times on the Web Forums Science
Missile Defense
| 
