Foreign Affairs Discussion Group Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Win Smith who wrote (155816)	1/10/2005 10:32:27 AM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) of 281500

I don't think Clarke's article is hysterical at all. Perhaps you didn't read the footnotes. Clarke I think supports his thesis fairly well with a lot of current detail that plays well into his fiction. He deliberately adopted a Clancyesque style for a very specific reason--this is the kind of stuff that our addled nation pays attention to. You might recall that some of Clancy's stuff has actually come very close to taking place. Open the defintional parameters a bit and you must conclude that it did in fact happen. So, no, I think Clarke is doing a public service. I'm grateful Atlantic put it on the cover. Big trouble if only half of what Clarke says comes about. Read in conjunction with Fallows' article, it paints a scary future. Fallows, you will recall, emphasizes something I have noted in the past: unless a lot of things are happening below radar, the Bush Administration is being criminally negligent with respect to nuclear proliferation issues, particularly as regards the Russians and their mess. Clinton was bad enough, but Bush is actually reducing funding from the Clinton levels.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next