New York Times on the Web Forums
Science
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?
Read Debates, a
new Web-only feature culled from Readers' Opinions, published every
Thursday.
(96 previous messages)
rshow55
- 03:27pm Mar 2, 2002 EST (#97
of 120)
Sorry I'm moving slowly. Thinking . .
almarst , lunarchick, and I had a lot of interesting
conversations about the media last year.
Technical issues are important here -- the center of this
thread -- and they illuminate all the other, larger issues we
discuss. The technical situation is such that, with a little
application of resources, some key lies would be
insupportable , both in the United States, and elsewhere.
Technical links: MD84 rshow55
3/2/02 10:52am
lchic
- 03:58pm Mar 2, 2002 EST (#98
of 120)
"Gee..I wonder.. is that like a LIE?" mAzzA Not
if you get your 'technical facts straight' mAzzA!
lchic
- 04:06pm Mar 2, 2002 EST (#99
of 120)
One or two people can talk into microphones and hear
themselves in headphones. The playback of their voice is delayed
up to 1/5 second (variable). This delay makes it almost
impossible for some people to speak intelligibly because the
natural mouth-to-ear feedback mechanism has been tampered with by
adding the delay. There's certainly a 'delay' post
Cold War. Is it more than a communications problem?
lchic
- 04:06pm Mar 2, 2002 EST (#100
of 120)
mAzzAm - are you living in a tin can? !
my answer was in the realm of parable ... YOU ... had to do the
thinking.
rshow55
- 04:20pm Mar 2, 2002 EST (#101
of 120)
It is a communications problem and more.
There are "paradigm conflicts" as well -- and therefore a deep
resistance to checking, and refocusing, exactly in those places
where it is most needed for progress. Resistances are psychological,
and due to interests -- and sometimes (on missile defense, for
instance) very conscious, longstanding systems of deceptions and
halftruths.
Sometimes, as a matter of geometry, you need an umpire. Someway,
somehow, some key "facts" have to be determined so that they fit
reality -- are really facts. Lchic and I did an whole long thread on
the Guardian -- a piece of work I'm very proud of, and that Dawn
should be proud of, as well . . . Paradigm Shift -- whose getting
there http://filmtalk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7726f/0
. . . a lot of stuff on that thread would be useful here.
lchic
- 04:23pm Mar 2, 2002 EST (#102
of 120)
Constraints on direct communiction regarding the taking down of
missiles will include factors such as:
'
- Culture
- National Will
- Language
- Timing
- Face-to-Face
- Mental attitude
- Philosophy
- Statistical appreciation
- Personal agendas working against
rshow55
- 04:26pm Mar 2, 2002 EST (#103
of 120)
There are also issues of force . Sometimes a surprisingly
small amount can do a lot. For instance, the simple fact that
questions are asked on a NYT forum can sometimes elicit answers in a
forceful way - - - even answers that effect multibillion
dollar projects.
But some motivating force is needed for some jobs - there
has to be enough of it -- and it has to be the right kind.
lchic
- 04:27pm Mar 2, 2002 EST (#104
of 120)
On Culture the world was lulled into the red_phone_button hype
... but who has their finger on the button now - does the button
need a 'finger' .... fingers are often said to be 'trigger happy'
... the past has shown that folks in power display lack of empathy
with the human condition - life!
lchic
- 04:29pm Mar 2, 2002 EST (#105
of 120)
So there has to be a National Will, an International Will, a Will
from LEADERSHIPS!
So when dangerous antique missiles are thought of as
strategic barganing chips ... as in a game, a gamble ... how can
that type of thinking amongst leaders be altered?
almarst-2001
- 04:32pm Mar 2, 2002 EST (#106
of 120)
NATO - military-industrial complex ...
From yesterday's BBC news:
The NATO REQUIRES its new members to upgrade their
military equipment by no other means then BYING the NEW
aircrafts from the West. The Chech and Hungary bought Swedish
fighters. The General Dynamics and US Gov. works hard to convince
Poland to by F16. The stake - $3bn - the entire yearly Polish
military budged. Not to mention other things the people of Eastern
Europe need.
It seems the "protection" they where promised to get may cost
them a business;)
(14
following messages)
New York Times on the Web Forums
Science
Missile Defense
|