New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

Technology has always found its greatest consumer in a nation's war and defense efforts. Since the last attempts at a "Star Wars" defense system, has technology changed considerably enough to make the latest Missile Defense initiatives more successful? Can such an application of science be successful? Is a militarized space inevitable, necessary or impossible?

rshowalter - 09:17am Oct 9, 2001 EST (#10194 of 10200)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Here is the heading, as recently substituted for "broader" heading by Armel:

" Technology has always found its greatest consumer in a nation's war and defense efforts. Since the last attempts at a "Star Wars" defense system, has technology changed considerably enough to make the latest Missile Defense initiatives more successful? Can such an application of science be successful? Is a militarized space inevitable, necessary or impossible?"

To answer these questions reasonably, what connections are to be rejected on structural grounds?

Some.

But it seems to me that you have to be careful how that rejection is done, and prepared to consider approaches, till they've played out a certain way, before refocusing.

Because, of course, refocusing has to happen, before the dialog can "close" - and people and logic can go on. Lines of thought are rejected, or downplayed. Others are emphasized. Weights are applied. You could call it "reframing." - - people do it all the time.

I hope Armel doesn't think this off topic: I feel that it is essential:

For human beings reasoning by analogy is involved in most of our reasoning, one way or another, and some of the best reasoning we can do happens by looking at exact structural correspondences between different cases. That happens in math all the time (the same system of equations can apply to different things). But it happens in human discourse, too. And it is powerful.

That relates to a feeling and opinion of my own. I feel that very few of possumdag's posts have been "off topic" -- in my opinion - she's a lady of very nice judgement. I feel that her postings have contributed to getting this thread toward closure, and have been graceful and wonderful, as well. I liked the few postings that she made yesterday, that I thought were on topic, though they were rejected, especially well.

rshowalter - 09:20am Oct 9, 2001 EST (#10195 of 10200)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

nomenclature 10/9/01 9:13am - - - could that "third way" be recognizing complexity, and autonomy, applying weights, recognizing that, within limits, others have rights to other views and other weights, but asking for consistency on things that matter enough for the specific reasons that happen to apply to real cases?

That might make a lot more possible - and get rid of a lot of stupid, unresolvable, ugly fights -- which have ugly consequences now (though not all ugly) whoever wins.

rshowalter - 09:22am Oct 9, 2001 EST (#10196 of 10200)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Let me offer a specific example.

I think some key issues of technical feasibilty matter for action, moral and practical, about our missile defense program.

I'd like to start, as I've said before, with checking some key things about lasar weapons -- clearly enough to actually achieve closure.

Not, as so often happens now, avoid it.

nomenclature - 09:28am Oct 9, 2001 EST (#10197 of 10200)

Avoids it?

rshowalter - 09:35am Oct 9, 2001 EST (#10198 of 10200)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

October 9, 2001 Its Freedom, Stupid By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

deals with a matter, not directly connected to missile defense, but where there is an exact analogy.

If we are defending freedom , there are limits to how feeble minded and simplistic we can be, and there often have to be weightings, and compromises, and even a willingness to let others be "wrong."

But for practical reasons, we have to come up with right answers , and often enough, we have to be able to explain them.

Such an ideal takes a lot of talking.

nomenclature - 09:41am Oct 9, 2001 EST (#10199 of 10200)

Ideas 'appear' in heads - magic! Why talk?

(1 following message)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense