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 - 08:24am Oct 16, 2003 EST (# 15128 of 15130)
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.

in 14135 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.7FggbbL8OeL.2785968@.f28e622/15841 I wrote:

For large perturbations of nonlinear systems that are not controlled at a higher level, divergent instability is the rule - multiple quasi-equilibrium points are not surprises, but the overwhelming expectation - and limit cycles are the best, as a practical matter, that anybody can actually hope for - or can actually get.

- the post didn't go up right away, and I'd intended to finish the thought with a point that I'm pretty sure is new .

For large perturbations of nonlinear systems that are controlled at a higher level, with good simulation at that higher level - and with adjustments in terms of well chosen "families" of simulation models - divergent instability is much less of a problem - multiple quasi-equilibrium points are much less of a problem, and far better control is possible.

After asking gisterme's permission to take steps to obsolete weapon systems - and getting that permission - yea, encouragement - I posted this - and it seems to me that there was a certain amount of interest http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/352

. It is now technically easy to shoot down every winged aircraft the US or any other nation has, or can expect to build - to detect every submarine - and to sink every surface ship within 500 miles of land - the technology for doing this is basic - and I see neither technical nor tactical countermeasures.

That was an example of a control system with internal simulation. A lesson interesting in itself - involving national safety - and linked to other issues involving national honor and safety.

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

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

- - - -

For stability - for reasonable safety - people have to listen

On Listening By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/16/opinion/16FRIE.html

And think.

And know how to think - when emotions are at play - and the stakes are high.

In a lot of logical sequences, it would make a difference to show clearly that the "technical foundation" of the Bush administration's "missile defense" is no workable foundation at all. It would be practical to do this. The technical facts are clear - and widely understood among experts. The discourse, exposition, and illustration would have to be done -- to the sort of standards that work reliably in courts of law. If political leaders (who have a stake in truth here) wanted this to happen, it would happen.

Not even the United States is comfortable with a "right to lie" when things can be questioned. If everyone outside the US was convinced of questions of fact -- how long would Americans (who very often make very good decisions) resist the facts? How could they?

This thread, muddled as it is offers plenty of evidence of how much leverage truth has -- and with some force behind such a format -- much that is useful could come from work done here.

(2 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense