New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

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?

zxw2001 - 11:28am May 12, 2001 EST (#3754 of 3760)

(continue above post) (11). Why some body against U. S to develop NMD but they did? Because their technology is not as good as that of U. S, if they have NMD but U. S has no, then they can not only threat U.S. but also our freinds! Wake up American!!! (12). Yes, there are a lot of technic problem need to be solve for NMD, but if we do our best we can solve them absolutely, it is too late, when missile fall into New York city then we wake up and say:" oh! my God! what happen!?" (13). Yes, NMD is very expensive, but we need to think about: money is more valuable or our life is more valuable? (14). Supporting Bush, he is a nice and a responsible American President, when mass missile attacking happening, it will not just kill republicans, missiles do not know who is republician;

Dear Newspaper men of New York times, please you forward my opinion to all Congressmen and some innocent scientists(They are very smart in Science but innocent in politics!) Welcome any freind discuss with me at

xr1994@yahoo.com

Thank you for your reading my post!

rshowalter - 01:01pm May 12, 2001 EST (#3755 of 3760)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Speaking just for myself, I have enormous respect and sympathy for the points made in ... almarst-2001 5/12/01 9:03am ... and think many other people, all over the world, will also.

possumdag 5/12/01 9:40am seems right to me on the irresponsible, death dealing, "cowboy mentality" too often on view in America, and too often characterizing the US military. Messes should be avoided when possible, and when made, cleaned up.

I found zxw2001 5/12/01 11:25am an interesting post. But how much is true as stated? How much is balanced? How much is left out? Those are questions that can be checked, and set out clearly, so that people can make their dicisions.

possumdag 5/12/01 10:44am says that many of the points in zxw2001 5/12/01 11:25am can be disagreed with, and that's putting the matter mildly.

rshowalter - 01:04pm May 12, 2001 EST (#3756 of 3760)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

I'd add a personal point. What about counting costs, and accounting consequences? Even if it were coldly, unfeelingly done, it would be better than the logic used now.

Many of the arguments for "justified war" are grossly out of proportion. But it is easy, in clear language, to make a case for anything.

Language is simply not well suited for communicating matters of quantity at all - unless, somehow, pictures, aesthetics, or math can be connected with the language.

( Ogden's Basic English , a full service language of 800 words, had only two words for quantity in the whole language - "more" and "most" -- and it is amazing, and depressing, how little language communication needs with more quantitative sophistication than that. )

The question "what follows from what is said" can be traced, and needs to be, much more often.

There are some hard parts of this -- and some are hard for people to recognize, because we've lived so long in a "culture of lying."

rshowalter - 01:05pm May 12, 2001 EST (#3757 of 3760)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Quotes from P.H. Weaver's NEWS AND THE CULTURE OF LYING: How Journalism Really Works fit here: 1295-1296: rshowalter 3/22/01 8:11am Here's part of that:

the "culture" Weaver describes - which was put into place, and functining well, by 1915 - is not set up for the new global realities -- it is not well defended against the internet, and other information technologies. There are new opportunities -- if people are willing to send in clear.

Gorbachev was right that "openness" is crucial. There are socio-technical challenges associated with openness -- but they are challenges before us, that carry important opportunities.

The CIA was built by people who knew well how to conceal EVERYTHING important in ways that made them impregnible to the journalistic usages Weaver describes.

The military-industrial complex that was well evolved by World War II, and that Eisenhower did so much to advance, but then warned against in the FAREWELL ADDRESS of President Dwight D. Eisenhower January 17, 1961 http://www.geocities.com/~newgeneration/ikefw.htm was highly evolved to evade any compromise of function according to journalistic usages as Weaver describes them. And remains so.

The defenses of these institutions, however, are far less formidible than they used to be. The information "lied about" is mostly not fully concealed -- it is simply made available in forms that Weaver's "culture of journalism" cannot digest. Now, this information is available, and with some new sociotechnical usages that are now fully possible, can be brought to bear in the cause of truth.

It can happen in clear, and in full view of anyone who wishes to look or participate in an open way.

This forum, and related ones, are making progress in that direction.

(3 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense