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 - 10:00am Jun 15, 2001 EST (#5188 of 5245)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

An umpiring function would be necessary -- at least in the form of pre-agreement in the even ot impasse over questions of fact -- and I'd obviously not be a good umpire -- I have a point of view - I want nukes down.

On technical questions, umpiring could be staffed well from the British or German Patent Offices.

On other questions, umpiring could be arranged, too.

Wouldn't be expensive -- could happen on the internet-- and could be open.

rshowalter - 10:07am Jun 15, 2001 EST (#5189 of 5245)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

A proposal for umpiring questions of fact at the US Patent Office, in scientific controversy -- might be suggestive of a good, direct, inexpensive way of getting facts straight under conditions where objectivity and competence could not only be assumed, but could also be checked.

rshowalt "Science in the News" 1/4/00 7:43am ..... rshowalt "Science in the News" 1/4/00 7:45am
rshowalt "Science in the News" 1/4/00 7:46am

Questions of fact can be checked to closure -- and skills in place in the patent examiner corps of a number of countries fit the job of doing that well. (Patent work was good training for Margaret Thatcher, and, I feel, for me.)

rshowalter - 10:10am Jun 15, 2001 EST (#5190 of 5245)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

On umpiring matters of logic -- a competent lawyer, judge, or academic -- set to the task of setting out the logical or model issues clearly -- could help see to it that bad models that could be excluded by reasonable matching against facts were excluded.

This could happen in public - with objectivity publicaly expected, and subject to public criticism.

rshowalter - 10:11am Jun 15, 2001 EST (#5191 of 5245)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Getting to workable agreements shouldn't be beyond the wit of man.

We aren't asking everybody to love each other - only to live together without killing each other.

Or, at least, without ending the world.

gisterme - 12:44pm Jun 15, 2001 EST (#5192 of 5245)

rshowalter wrote: "...I think the stakes involved on nuclear weapons issues are AS HIGH AS THEY COULD POSSIBLY BE..."

Couldn't agree more, Robert. I think the same.

rshowalter - 12:59pm Jun 15, 2001 EST (#5193 of 5245)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

In fact, we have a lot of common ground -- and I'm trying to adress your questions, which are fairly, honestly and constructively set questions, and remembering the things going on at this particular time as I do so.

One thing I'd point out now is that my concerns about nuclear control stability are not unique with me. . . . . by any means.

I noticed these lines in Deep U.S.-Europe Split Casts Long Shadow on Bush Tour by FRANK BRUNI http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/15/world/15PREX.html

1. " The Bush administration's position is that it wants to work to cut emissions by leading the world in the research and development of technologies that will combat global warming without hurting American industries and the country's economy.

2. " Referring to the European Union, Mr. Persson said, "It's one of the few institutions we can develop as a balance to U.S. world domination."

Referring to 1. -- I feel that, if the Bush administration set its mind to it, it could initiate work that would SOLVE the world's energy and CO2 problems technically -- something the world needs. Perhaps the "equatorial floating photocell" approach would work for energy -- and a similar effort of intensive algae cultivation (with fixed carbon buried) might work for getting CO2 where we, as human beings, wanted it. Or there might be other ways at the problem. I'm sure they are. That would be better than the restrictions of Kyoto. If the Bush administration were proactive , and got things done.

on 2. -- If the US got energy budgets more long-term-workable for the world -- it should and could be done on the basis where the US could not dominate the world -- and didn't have insecurities making it feel a need to. Nobody's going to run out of equatorial sea area, for instance.

I'm working pretty steady on the issue of control instabilities -and not backing down at all -- but do wish to be polite, and regret a certain testiness on my part yesterday.

gisterme - 01:12pm Jun 15, 2001 EST (#5194 of 5245)

lunarchick 6/15/01 7:18am

..." the citation said. "They have brought together scientists and decision-makers to collaborate across political divides on constructive proposals for reducing the nuclear threat."

Sounds like a well deserved award, lunarchick.

gisterme - 01:34pm Jun 15, 2001 EST (#5195 of 5245)

rshowalter 6/15/01 7:51am

Excellent links, Robert. Hope everybody reads those.

(50 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense