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?

rshowalter - 01:19pm May 17, 2001 EST (#4046 of 4050)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Here is my summary of Hitler's ideals -- on the basis of which he acted and led a nation that backed him. (Those who backed him substituted "we" for "I" to a great extent.) :

" There is an "ideal Germany" to be advanced at all costs, I am the person to conceptualize it and impose it, and there will be NO value being placed on any nations, groups, or individuals who do not fit my elaborate, philosophically ornate, arbitrary conception."

Let me make two word substitutions:

" There is an "ideal America" to be advanced at all costs, we are the people to conceptualize it and impose it, and there will be NO value being placed on any nations, groups, or individuals who do not fit our elaborate, philosophically ornate, arbitrary conception."

Does that characterization remind you of some people?

Would it remind some other people of some people you know?

rshowalter - 01:21pm May 17, 2001 EST (#4047 of 4050)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Many people outside the US see the US that way, and as the current administration, for all its fancy words (and the Nazis had plenty of fancy words, too) becomes more and more unilateralist, the resemblence occurs to more and more people.

At their worst, Americans sure look a lot like Nazis to me.

I prefer Americans at their best, where they have many traits the whole world admires, with good reason.

rshowalter - 02:01pm May 17, 2001 EST (#4048 of 4050)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?7@174.nk7QawIpodR^4024505@.f0ce57b/4331 asked a GREAT question:

" What do you think was the reason for dramatic success of the Marshall's plan for Europe after the WWII, compare to the dismal results of the tremendowsly greater relative investments of the Germany in the formerly Eastern part - the country in many orders of magnitude better shape, not destroyed in the war, having a highly educated and healthy human potential, much smaller size and no significant language and culture difference from the West Germany?

I'll be another hour answering it, beyond this -- in the case of the Marshall plan, countries were devastated, but they knew what they wanted to do, and could proceed with it in a logically incremental basis, step by step -- so that the real people involved had jobs they could do. In the case of reintegrating of E.Germany, the physical situation wasn't devastating, but there was a total mismatch between where people were, and the sociotechnical system they had and what they were asked (and often) wanted to do. People were asked to proceed in a "revolutionary" way, rather than step by step, on a set of assumptions that weren't workable for the people involved. The issue is related to the scientific notion of "paradigm conflict" -- and sorting out the impasses involved seems similar to me. In fact, "paradigm conflict" seems a realitively simple, clear test case for what needs to be done.

Here are some references, to the Riley-Showalter "paradigm thread, that I think describe, in a new and clearer way, how paradigm conflict works.

306-310: http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7726f/360

313-317: http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7726f/367

166-167: http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7726f/209

almarst, I think the points relate to your question, and I'll be back with more in an hour.

rshowalter - 02:27pm May 17, 2001 EST (#4049 of 4050)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

I'll be back with more by 3:00, but wanted to add this quote from Thomas Kuhn, with a short comment:

1074: rshowalter 3/16/01 12:58pm ... 1075: rshowalter 3/16/01 1:01pm

" In our interactions, both Russians, and Americans, and others, can have perceptual difficulties that resemble paradigm conflict impasses -- and they can occur, for different reasons, on all sides of a controversy -- so that everybody misunderstands a great deal (and misunderstandings don't match.)

I think that is the case on crucial issues involving our military balances, and especially regarding our nuclear balances. I think it is an issue involved very often when things go badly between us.

rshowalter - 02:42pm May 17, 2001 EST (#4050 of 4050)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Here are more links to the Riley-Showalter "paradigm" thread" -- of lower priority, but perhaps useful:

26: http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7726f/33

93-95: http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7726f/118

215-217: http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7726f/259

221-222: http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7726f/265

261-262: http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7726f/310

273-274: http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7726f/324

and something for academic folk: 295-297: http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7726f/349

Back by 3:00.

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense