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 - 06:39am Nov 4, 2003 EST (# 16446 of 16449)
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.

No - ideas have interest - if they fit for the reader. But without responsibility, a lot is lost. I'm thinking about gains.

rshow55 - 12:53pm Apr 10, 2002 EST (# 1232 of 16414) http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.rPcJb1XvU06.1108138@.f28e622/1577 includes this:

"I wrote an expository poem on damped and undamped exponential functions, a while back.

"Thought I'd post it here -- it has something to do with "connecting the dots" - getting things done -- and how hopes can be stopped , as well.

Chain Breakers http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee79f4e/618

"Just musing -- if I put on a suit, shined my shoes, and walked into the State Department - asking for permission to see some people -- what do you think might happen?

"I'd like to make a pitch to the Russian Embassy, and some other places, as well.

. . . . . .

Gisterme hadn't posted in quite some time. He posted within fifteen minutes.

I don't know if gisterme is connected to the government - perhaps he is a NYT writer - but he knows a lot - and has sometimes paid attention to this thread. http://www.mrshowalter.net/Sequential.htm

It seems to me good - and not a breach of confidence - to post excerpts from my Oct 26 letter to Sulzberger here:

"A tremendous amount of my effort on the Missile Defense board has been to solve TECHNICAL problems of negotiating stable outcomes to "games" and negotiations, including those that result in wars, that involve complexity, competition, cooperation and high emotional stakes. These problems have been major barriers to progress in international relations and commerce.

"The NYT editorial page often asks diplomats to arrange things that they do not know how to do technically. I think that if you'd authorize someone at NYT to meet with me - we're quite close to a situation where general and simple solutions to this class of problems can be demonstrated and explained so that they can be solved routinely and practically. With a model of the kind of solution needed in general worked out - in the presence of a record that I believe many people and organizations can and will learn from.

"The question is how you produce a "win win" solution under circumstances where negative sum outcomes are also possible, and instabilities are a problem. Currently, such circumstances result in stasis, unnecessary losses, and wars.

" . . . . The thread embodies the hard work and hopes of many NYT people. I hope to do everything I can to make the interaction between me and the TIMES a positive sum game.

"I'm hoping that the Missile Defense thread - after a meeting and an exchange of short letters, will clearly demonstrate how to solve the TECHNICAL problems of negotiating stable outcomes to complex games involving both competition and cooperation. In a case big enough to study, but not too big. With real stakes, but not stakes too high to permit intelligent function of intelligent people.

"I believe that the work done on the Missile Defense board, which has plainly been an expense to The New York Times, should be a credit to The New York Times, not a source of problems. An investment of time and good faith worthwhile for the Times in terms of both status and money for the Times.

New York Times people may never meet face to face with me - and maybe never should, though I'd like to. But since that time, I think that the NYT has handled the situations involved with this thread very well. I think the hopes quoted above are reasonable hopes from where we stand - and that they can be served in ways that make business sense for the NYT. If government people with the connections gisterme seems to have wanted that to happen - it could, after a phone call or two. The support, it seems to me, should come from a foundation, or from business interests willing to associate themselves with the eff

rshow55 - 06:42am Nov 4, 2003 EST (# 16447 of 16449)
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.

The support, it seems to me, should come from a foundation, or from business interests willing to associate themselves with the effort. Even the TIMES, big as it is - can't do everything that is in the public interest - and connected to journalism - without more "diplomacy and alliance making" than it currently employs.

"Connecting the dots" is important - and this thread has illustrated a good deal about the technique. It is not day-to-day journalism - though it can increase the value of day-to-day journalism.

There's both a commercial and a journalistic challenge there - and if it involves new headaches - it involves new and reasonable hopes, too. Big ones.

(2 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense