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 - 09:24am Nov 13, 2003 EST (# 17492 of 17496)
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.

(continued _ letter to Sulzberger - Oct 26 )

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.

I know that this is an unusual request - but the thread itself is unusual - http://www.mrshowalter.net/Sequential.htm and represents a large enough investment and enough complications and potential risks that a sorting out seems in order - in everybody's interest. 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.

I'll call your secretary monday morning at 11:00 ET to see if there is someone I can contact to discuss this. I hope we can arrange a meeting. I'd be honored to recieve your call to me at any time at 608 - 829-3657 or you may contact me by email at this address.

Respectfully,

M. Robert Showalter

M. Robert Showalter

7205 B Old Sauk Rd. Madison, Wi 53717

cantabb - 09:27am Nov 13, 2003 EST (# 17493 of 17496)

In my post #17486, because of a formatting problem the following [from rshow55) incorrectly as part of my comment

rshow55's:

I have a technical problem with that. Suppose to find the truths connected to my work (on a solar energy project, for example) - administrators and committees have to be involved. Security lawyers. People doing due diligence. And it becomes necessary to check things - including things on this thread.

For example, by hiring a private detective to run things down.

I need to have an administratively clear handoff.

And I can't give gifts, either.

For example, if we negotiated an equity interest in the solar energy work ( if it ever pans out ) then I'd have a reason I could defend to include the NYT in the deal.

Without a negotiation - and a paper trail, that's impossible in a case like this.

Especially when so many posts that look so connected with the NYT organization are coming out from people who actively deny any NYT association whatsoever. You can't have a "meeting of the minds" under such circumstances. And a "meeting of the minds" has to happen or there can be no deals.

I may have a fiduciary obligation to get into a fight - just to get the matter clarified. By American or Western European legal standards - I've got some good grounds for fighting, if I choose to.

Why not talk - at least over the phone? I'd talk to any responsible NYT employee to start with.

The answers that I can figure out aren't much credit to the New York Times, whatever you think of me.

Don't sound THAT "happy," do you now ?

More demands, iomplied threats, 'fiduciary obligation to get into a fight', 'hiring a private detective', among other things.

STILL pleading your case......

(3 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense