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 - 06:07pm Sep 27, 2003 EST (# 14060 of 14065)
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.

That's been based on the assumption - that some may think naive - that people can learn how to agree to disagree clearly, without fighting, comfortably, so that they can cooperate stably, safely, and productively. Knowing that wouldn't avoid all conflict - but it would avoid a great deal - and help limit the rest. It seems to me that people are about ready to learn "how to agree to disagree without fighting." I also think that a good deal has condensed. I think tight summaries - such as Table 3.1 http://www.mrshowalter.net/Similitude_ForceRatios_sjk.htm are especially useful - though arguably not "orignial" - and lchic and I have tried to produce some.

(iv) what's the basis of your various claims, re lives saved, people in government paying attention or learning from your postings, etc.

I'm guessing. One basis of my guessing is the fine posts by fredmoore and manj on this thread, and the high literary quality of some of gisterme's postings, too. I have some other reasons. Every once in a while, it seems to me that this thread might be influencing, however indirectly, some of the thinking that ends up in articles by the NYT. I don't think I'm guessing that politicians look at things published at the TIMES - and it seems sure that the TIMES knows if TIMES people read this thread. On statistical grounds, that seems likely.

Here's a fact - a fact that isn't so important to know if explosive fighting without end is the objective - but a fact that is important to know if stable resolutions that pass reasonable tests of fairness are to be achieved.

For stable end games - people and groups have to be workably clear on these key questions.

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.

But if these patterns of agreement or disagreement are NOT known - then situations that involve disagreements are inherently unstable.

That may be an "old and obvious" result. But an important one that people don't seem to know (or seem to forget) when it most needs to be remembered. It may be a simple thing to know. But useful. Knowledge of how to tie your shoes is a humble thing. But useful in its way, too.

I'd like to set out better answers to (i) - (iv) above - but not if cantabb is in the position of "judge, jury, and executioner."

A very good way to do so - if the NYT really wanted to do so - without disclosing names of posters to me - would be to contact me - and see if I could set something up with an interlocator who is an officer of the University of Wisconsin. It might take some money to do so - but if the NYT wanted it done - I might find the money. The loyalty of this officer to the United States and the UW would be beyond question. Answers as complete as anybody could reasonably want would be available - with openings for checking if checking was desired - and contact with people who have already checked a good deal.

rshow55 - 06:09pm Sep 27, 2003 EST (# 14061 of 14065)
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 liked The Truth Is Out There, but It's Classified http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/27/opinion/27SAT4.html

The secrecy surrounding Area 51, a large Air Force base in the Nevada desert, has been obsessive, even for the military.

http://www.mrshowalter.net/SP_51_n_Swim.htm has a poem that starts . . "There's an installation . . In a state I won't name . . The existence of which is not . . acknowledged, except with winks

and another that starts "Suppose you can swim well and folks know it . . "

and a wonderful ditty from cuchulain14

(4 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense