Conference on World Affairs

Overall Impression:Some ideas from last night's panel on war crept in. I think though that we strayed from technology and looked more at the human issues. And perhaps that is as it should be. Technology is good, but it still comes down to people and how they interact with each other.

Jim Smith

I slept in and missed his talk. Dang!

Bill Christison

Technology increases all risk. It is now easier to get weapons of mass destruction. It will continue to get easier. Hopefully it will make security easier as well.

Alan Harris

Alan talked about national security at the airports and how we need to found a balance between security and intrusions on our civil liberties. He noted that at the airport gate we are pure strangers to the security people. Telemarketers have more information about us. We have a larger question of how to control and use the information about gathered about us. Of course within all that identity theft remains a big risk. We need a good way to allow technology to certify identity.

Jane Bullock

Two key ideas were presented here. The first was the ability of information technology to provide collaborative environments that don't break down. For the military to create a plan it used to take two months and lots of phases and departments. New technology has allowed various military groups to work together better and reduce the time required for a military plan to four days.

The second idea concerned how the new legislative climate has put our civil liberties at risk. Data collection about civilians is occurring in the Department of Defense, rather than in the FBI and Justice Departments. This raises the 1984-Big Brother question of "Who watches the watchers?"

QUESTION PERIOD IDEAS

• We might have to accept that others will get weapons and new technologies and change our policy approaches to adapt to new inventions.
• There is a need for an outlet for aggression for young males. Last night's panel on war covered the security threat posed by impressionable youth. Terrorists come from areas that lack jobs, security, and hope. An idea was floated modeled on the play areas at local McDonalds. They could have a padded room with padded sticks where young people could go to beat each other up and vent their aggressions. [I think this qualifies as a low tech solution to national security.]
• What about culture and military technology. The example of Braveheart (1292) was given. There the long bow allowed the concentration of power and was able to transform them. This was contrasted with the crossbow that had lots of power, but had little transforative effect on the culture that got it. If a society has the ability to use something it can be transformative. [So maybe high technology is not much use to people who cannot really understand it and its power?]
• Somebody will always have a bigger stick.
• Our goal should be that individual countries are not as important as the whole. Engagement and outreach are needed tools. Somehow along the way we need to develop a multi-national foreign policy.
• If nothing else we need a multi-national policy just to get people talking. Taking an idea from Patch Adams, if the military is supposed to be an apolitical combat force, how about an apolitical love force?