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?

Read Debates, a new Web-only feature culled from Readers' Opinions, published every Thursday.

rshow55 - 01:29pm Sep 22, 2003 EST (# 13846 of 13847)
Can we do a better job of finding truth? YES. Click "rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have done and worked for on this thread.

I typed a paragraph with a word that conveyed the opposite of what I intended. When I typed

When people want to get right answers by successive approximation - they often can - but they usually can't see how easy it is to produce divergence - and how often efforts to avoid divergence are intentional and malicious. http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.597a9376/154

I meant to type

When people want to get right answers by successive approximation - they often can. But they usually can't see how easy it is to produce divergence. They usually can't see how often efforts to produce divergence are intentional and malicious. http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.597a9376/154

There are, of course, times when an effort to produce convergence is malicious, too.

What is intended - what interests are being served - are key questions.

People need to think harder about what cheating is - in context.

In terms of what matters. This matters: For stable end games - people and groups have to be workably clear on

How do they disagree (agree) about logical structure ?

How do they disagree (agree) about facts ?

How do they disagree (agree) about questions of how much different things matter ?

How do they differ in their team identifications ?

Odds are good that if the patterns of agreement (or disagreement) are STABLE and KNOWN they can be decently accomodated.

Unless these issues indented above can be workably resolved in a specific "game" - there can be no fair games. Nor can there be stable games.

jorian319 - 01:32pm Sep 22, 2003 EST (# 13847 of 13847)

What's fair ? is a key question. A difficult question. And usually a question of details - and weightings.

Including many that have to be calibrated. - That is - adjusted to fit circumstances and needs.

"Do the right thing" is something to strive for. Whether that requires agreement from others about what "the right thing" is, should be a subject open to debate. HONEST, FORTHRIGHT debate!

It is important that we know that the effort we put forth to understand what is "right" - for ourselves or for others - is subject to disagreement by other, possibly reasonable people. and Blah blah blah. </rshow>

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense