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.

almarst2002 - 12:08pm Sep 25, 2003 EST (# 13966 of 13969)

Six months after the launch of the invasion, it has become ever clearer that the war was not only a crime of aggression, but a gigantic political blunder for those who ordered it and who are only now beginning to grasp the scale of the political price they may have to pay. - http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1049229,00.html

cantabb - 12:18pm Sep 25, 2003 EST (# 13967 of 13969)

The flurry of ~ 25 posts helps confirm how badly this thread needs focus. It includes a few things (discussed with me before) that need to be placed in their proper place:

rshow55 - 05:58am Sep 25, 2003 EST (# 13946 of 13958)

I think this thread has made the world safer.

How ? And in what way ? Or, because you say so ?

I STILL don’t know what specifically you are working at, and what specifically you have achieved to even dream of making such outrageous claims, including how this has managed to save thousands of lives.

rshow55 - 06:09am Sep 25, 2003 EST (# 13948 of 13958)

I think that it is vital to go "round and round" when you're looking at new stuff because it is the multiple perspectives - the formation and rejection of many perspectives - that permits convergence - in a not so very slow focusing process - till an answer that works every which way you look at it - an approach that is canonical is found.

Depends on what specifically you’re looking for ? And IF you CAN recognize anything ‘New’ in that. Lot of bromide amounts to lot of bromide, nothing specific, nothing palpable or concrete.

Because right answers are so sparse –…..

You gotta know the question FIRST.

rshow55 - 06:35am Sep 25, 2003 EST (# 13953 of 13958)

Because "connecting the dots" works so well - if people keep at it - and are clear about logical structure, facts, weights and team identifications, and how they matter - we can do a lot better than we've been doing.

Depends on IF you know what “dots” to connect ? Difficult to imagine any success when you seem so totally confused “ about logical structure, facts, weights and team identifications, and how they matter.”

rshow55 - 06:54am Sep 25, 2003 EST (# 13956 of 13958)

Internal consistency is a vital standard and loop tests - with both internal referncing - and references to known standards - can do a lot. In fact - the most essential advances in our scientific instruments are based on that.

A circular structure based on misinformation and confusion can also show “internal consistency.” Essential approach in propagandism.

A similar structure could also be based on facts [“checked” and verified] that fit in with each other, rationally, and progressively develop a picture.

But what you are talking about merely involves fuzzy, inane generalities and confusion. It's circular references to this that you think shows “internal consistency.” Laughable.

Then in posts #13959 –13963, you again quote yourself and Bridgman, BUT present nothing on what specifically you were trying to accomplish or how rationally and logically did you approach whatever problem you had in mind [still undefined, unspecified], using Bridgman .

rshow55 - 11:15am Sep 25, 2003 EST (# 13959 of 13963)

Here are passages, from 602-608 [P.W. Bridgman] that I think are of interest - involve science - and help provide a referent to answer the question - What have lchic and I accomplished on the MD board and related boards?

BUT You did NOT say ANYTHING what you two have “accomplished”?

rshow55 - 11:27am Sep 25, 2003 EST (# 13963 of 13963)

I've felt that these are important questions - felt that the answers to these questions have to be affirmative - and have been working - with lchic - to get these questions much clearer than they have been before.

There are good reasons to do that - and good reasons to do that here.

Reasons that involve with science - and all other issues where complex understanding is necessary.

Peace making is an example where these questions are important.

You have neither defined the “questions” nor what YOU have achieved so far.

“Peace making” requires much more than wishful thinking.

rshow55 - 11:52am Sep 25, 2003 EST (# 13965 of 13965)

It

cantabb - 12:19pm Sep 25, 2003 EST (# 13968 of 13969)

rshow55 - 11:52am Sep 25, 2003 EST (# 13965 of 13965)

It is fair to ask "What have you been doing, and doing with lchic , since that posting?

I think the answer is "a lot" - work that I expect should be able to reduce the risk of agony and death from war a long way from where it has been - and make advances in science and economics possible - and if I'm wrong - there ought to be ways to check that are actually workable.

Absolutely ridiculous claims. NOTHING specific. Just fond hopes based on highly nebulous thoughts.

(1 following message)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense