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 - 06:25pm Sep 29, 2003 EST (# 14145 of 14160)
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.

For the problems involved - it takes time and staff - and some willingness to have controlled small fights.

You need the small fights to learn enough so that stability is possible.

But these days - all fights are likely to become unstable.

That classifies hope out of existence.

It is my technical judgement that unless this material is learned - it is likely that the world will be destroyed by an explosive instability involving nuclear weapons.

Maybe I've "slipped a decimial point."

But if you wonder why I'm working so hard that's why.

jorian319 - 06:34pm Sep 29, 2003 EST (# 14146 of 14160)
The dogmatism is all on the side that maintains there is no global climate effect ...Anyone who has visited a city like LA on a nice smog filled day knows that's not true. -amzingdrx

...if you know what matters in enough detail to do valid, scalable modelling...

And if you're willing to crash and burn a few times, you can use use it as a measure of what you don't know - if you survive. That's not the way to control anything, though. If you know what matters in enough detail to do scalable modeling, the model is often a dispensible step.

rshow55 - 06:57pm Sep 29, 2003 EST (# 14147 of 14160)
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.

A few times ?

In complicated circumstances look at how N! increases as N increases.

2! = 1

4! = 24

8! = 40,320

16! = 2.09 x 10^13

32! = 2.63 x 10^35

64! = 1,269 x 10^89

What do you mean by a few times ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ?

How many variables, and combinations of cases, are there?

Click "rshow55" at the upper left hand corner of this posting - scroll to the bottom - and look at how N! grows. And look at some ratios that say a lot about what hope and hopeless mean - in complex technical systems.

Sometimes Gisterme uses a colloquial phrase :

. Mercy !

If you look at how N! grows - you'll get a sense of where there is no mercy left - and people have to be careful.

Sometimes it is not acceptable to do "crash and burn" engineering .

No matter how hard you try - there is always too much to that.

But analysis is essential.

I'm probably out for the night. I'm tired.

rshow55 - 06:58pm Sep 29, 2003 EST (# 14148 of 14160)
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.

errata: 2! = 2

rshow55 - 07:03pm Sep 29, 2003 EST (# 14149 of 14160)
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.

Jorian:

. . if you're willing to crash and burn a few times, you can use use it as a measure of what you don't know - if you survive.

Models that blow up involve less cost than people or groups or cities or planets that blow up.

And modelling is getting much better and much cheaper.

We have to learn to be more careful - more competent - and more caring.

OUT FOR TONIGHT.

jorian319 - 07:20pm Sep 29, 2003 EST (# 14150 of 14160)
The dogmatism is all on the side that maintains there is no global climate effect ...Anyone who has visited a city like LA on a nice smog filled day knows that's not true. -amzingdrx

Sometimes it is not acceptable to do "crash and burn" engineering

That was my point.

modelling is getting much better and much cheaper

Sometimes you get what you pay for.

When venturing into unknown territory, I do not want to rely on models. That includes putative climate decisions, and especially policy formulation. Crash-and-burn is not a viable option for either, and I don't think mini-modeling is a good idea. It gives a flase sense of correctness/security.

(10 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense