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 - 08:15am Oct 3, 2003 EST (# 14250 of 14256)
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.

rshowalter - 03:55pm Sep 1, 2001 EST (#8302

No solution consistent with the "constraints" implied in the circumstances above is possible.

For human survival, we need solutions that people can "live with." ....

WE NEED A REFRAMING . . .

rshowalter - 05:55pm Sep 1, 2001 EST (#8303 http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md8000s/md8303.htm

What makes me think better solutions are possible ?

The last few months, for one thing.

With a few new insights, and a little more facility with tools at hand, or just on the horizon, we'll still have plenty of problems.

But we'll be able to do better than we've done.

- - - - -

Just before 9/11 , I thought a great deal had been accomplished, and more could be. There was so much effort - on this thread and elsewhere, that hope seemed reasonably, along with plenty of concern.

The world changed with on 9/11/2000 Here's the Front Page of NYT on the Web - September 12, 2001 - http://www.mrshowalter.net/NYTWebFrontPage_9_11_02.htm

But a great deal of continuity has been maintained - and I believe that this thread is now, and has been for a while, the largest interconnected corpus devoted to negotiation practices in the world - and one with some probably distinguished, if anonymous, posters. http://www.mrshowalter.net/Sequential.htm

This thread was set up about Missile Defense - but it has evolved to involve more, with plenty of assistance from the NYT. This thread has been based on the "fiction" that staffed organizations were looking at it - and has prototyped patterns that staffed organizations could use. Sometimes I've hoped some staffs have looked at it.

To sort out technical problems - in missile defense and elsewhere - we face logical problems - and lchic and I have been working on them - with a great deal of able assistance - including some recent assistance, regarding perturbation and damping, from Cantabb .

We need to Iearn how to agree to disagree clearly, without fighting, comfortably, so that they can cooperate stably, safely, and productively - and when it matters enough, we need to learn how to agree about facts. http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.rOV3bskZKmY.186979@.f28e622/15832 rshow55 9/29/03 2:07pm

I believe that this thread is now, and has been for a while, the largest interconnected corpus devoted to negotiation practices in the world - or at least one of very few. It includes some probably distinguished, if anonymous, posters. http://www.mrshowalter.net/Sequential.htm I'm hopeful that the work it represents will be worthwhile - in the public interest, and from the viewpoint of The New York Times

. . . .

Wishing Won't Make Star Wars So http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/03/opinion/03FRI3.html is distinguished - and this thread provides connections and support for what it says. I hope to add some supporting detail to http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/03/opinion/03FRI3.html as the day goes one.

We're dealing with serious problems - and dealing with policies based far too much on tactics of "slime and defend." http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/03/opinion/03KRUG.html - - If people start to pay attention - a "house of cards" that should be shaken will be http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/03/opinion/03HERB.html .

(6 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense