From: Dehede011@aol.com
Date: Fri Jan 17 2003 - 21:53:19 MST
In a message dated 1/17/2003 9:46:55 PM Central Standard Time,
thespike@earthlink.net writes: This was the gravamen of the angry spat
between Robert Heinlein and Arthur Clarke over SDI plans; Heinlein felt
insulted to be given contrary advice on his own soil about the actions of his
own nation; Clarke quite correctly spoke out in defence of us all, Americans
and otherwise.
Damien,
As I have heard that story there were two offenses given. On the
issue involved Heinlein did not think Clark and Sri Lanka had even a
secondary interest. If America chose to defend itself in that manner it
neither increased nor decreased the likelihood of Sri Lanka getting a missile
thrown its way. That seems to have been Heinlein's position. Had Clarke or
Sri Lanka had an interest they would have been welcome to their insistence --
more than a mere opinion.
Secondly, under examination it quickly became apparent that Clarke
with his powerful mind had not even superficially examined the issues
involved he had simply repeated some opinions he had heard some of his
friends express. In short Clarke was talking out of turn and through his
ear. There is nothing correct in speaking out of turn on a matter that
Clarke had not had the courtesy to consider before speaking. He made a poor
show all around I would say and point to Clarke's apology to Heinlein later.
To his credit Clarke came to understand his offense.
As you have opened this can of worms the question that keeps running
through my mind is this: Why is it in Australia's interest to have the US
continue playing the sacrificial lamb instead of taking arms against a 4th
rate dictator and his ilk. Did the bomb on Bali scare your nation so badly?
In asking that question I have to separate my question to you and any
possible question about the valor of the Australian fighting man -- that is
above reproach.
Ron h.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jan 21 2003 - 17:10:21 MST