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 - 03:56pm Nov 5, 2003 EST (# 16588 of 16589)
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.

Re: cantabb - 08:31pm Sep 17, 2003 EST (# 13705

13916 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.8JYsbZHAVl1.1568648@.f28e622/15621 includes this concession to Cantabb from me:

Cantabb , I think it is clear that if the monitors wanted to construe the pupose of this thread exactly according to the heading - or any of the headings this thread has carried since its beginning in May 2000 ( those headings are here: 756 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.8JYsbZHAVl1.1568648@.f28e622/949 ) - about 80% of the 25000 posts that have gone onto this thread would have been barred.

About that percentage of my posts - almarst's posts - and gisterme's posts would have been barred. I think the monitors did well to permit what they permitted.

- - -

And I appreciate the forebearance of the monitors !

rshow55 - 03:59pm Nov 5, 2003 EST (# 16589 of 16589)
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.

I'm writing a response to a phone conversation earlier - and doing it carefully. Feeling good about it.

Have to worry - for it seems to me that everything I'd hoped to accomplish on this board might get done. Not exactly as I'd expected, but not too badly. Some while ago I wrote a note that included this:

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.

It appears that there will be no face to face meeting - and that one isn't needed in this case. I hope that the paragraph above will work out in essentials, with this modification:

I'm hoping that the Missile Defense thread - after one or a few phone conversations referring to and clarifying correspondence and an exchange of short letters, (one of which seems fine now) 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.

Maybe that's really going to be possible.

One thing I'm looking forward to is a chance to comfortably and safely write a very warm thank-you letter to The New York Times.

In that hope, I'm writing carefully - and trying not to screw up.

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense