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.

cantabb - 12:01pm Oct 2, 2003 EST (# 14224 of 14232)

rshow55 - 09:56am Oct 2, 2003 EST (# 14218 of 14219)

The failures of complex cooperation that people have most trouble with now - and the problems of peacemaking that we find insoluble now - involve complicated subject matter . I'm working to do a teaching job that I believe is necessary to deal with those problems. I think there's progress.

You can NOT teach what you don’t understand. May be you can to "the willing," your loyal supporters, and there a few here. The rest of what you, to quote one of your supporters, sounds just “self-aggrandising”! Groundless !

In my opinion, unless certain key issues are handled better than they are handled today - problems almost everybody wants solved will remain insoluble.

Cliché ! Doesn’t a 5-year old know that already ?

Cantabb's asked some key questions - and I'm trying to answer them - in ways that can be useful.

Why should it be that difficult and agonizing for you.

The questions had to do with (i) What you say you have been doing here for 2+ years ? (ii) What you’ve accomplished in relation to the claims you have been making ?

Shouldn’t be that difficult, should it, for a person who understands what the world needs, who has supposedly saved thousands of lives, and who thinks he has THE things that 'critical' to the security of US and the world ?

Isn't this "self-aggrandising" ? May be NOT to some of your loyal supporters.

Here are references to http://www.mrshowalter.net/Similitude_ForceRatios_sjk.htm that I believe are useful for organizing thought on issues that matter to me - and to the New York Times - and to the whole world.

On ‘organizing thought’? Ever tried it yourself ?

IN NEGOTIATION PROBLEMS IT IS IMPORTANT TO HAVE WORKABLE SIMULATIONS OF THE ACTORS WHO WISH TO HAVE A STABLE COOPERATION - WITHIN PREDICTABLE AND STABLE LIMITS.

NOT quite news, is it ?

Don’t leave out the “actors” who DO NOT share your views. It’s with them (more so than with like-minded people) that you’ll have to do most of difficult “negotiations.” What more is there to do with those who are already of the same mind and share same goal [sure, the approaches may be different, but that’d be minor compared to the other folks ?].

To get that information - generally - you need little fights - and enough controls that those little fights don't become big fights.

Depends on the type of “information,” doesn’t it ? To get classified, privileged info: Sure it'd be difficult [IF you don't have the necessary 'clearance' or don't qualify. It'd be illegal !] Somebody’s personal information? Sure, difficult (and may not be allowed).

But certainly NOT the public information – which is about all YOU have ! And, you and your ‘collaborator” know how to ‘search’ and ‘file’ !

Sometimes - for demonstration - you need a lot of fights that ought to be little fights. Jorian talked about the usefulness of doing some jobs at "full scale."

SO ? [btw, given your recent disagreement with gisterme, are you at least ‘quoting’ him in proper context and correctly ?]

This thread is as large a corpus as has ever been put together for illustrating how human discourse and negotiation works.

Nonsense. You ought to get out in the real world a little. Confused re-hash could also be a “corpus.” [Fredmoore: NOT “self-aggrandising” ?]

It says a lot about missile defense - and other things - and I think a lot has been accomplished, and more can be.

Mostly about NON-missile defense [remember your own over-generous estimate: ~20% on topic].

I'm trying to teach material that I believe people need for their own happiness and for their own safety.

You can’t teach things you DO NOT understand yourself [I mean, except to the willing: your loyal collaborators/supporters].

cantabb - 12:07pm Oct 2, 2003 EST (# 14225 of 14232)

rshow55 - 09:56am Oct 2, 2003 EST (# 14218 of 14219)

Whether I'm right or wrong about that - with some crossreferencing it would be possible to support the idea that I really believe that.

More “crossreferencing” for what, with what ? Btw, “the idea” (still undefined?) you talk about ?: Is it THAT new and original ? Or, you just say so ?

jorian319 - 12:07pm Oct 2, 2003 EST (# 14226 of 14232)
"You know I'm an idiot like you know evolution is true" - - James Nienhuis

Robert,

You never responded to my proposal, which offers the following benefits to this thread, to humanity, and of course to ME!