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 - 11:25am Jun 29, 2002 EST (#2771 of 2779)

MD2116 rshow55 5/9/02 9:34am includes this:

AEA was an effort to make specific breakthroughs in automotive design, which were made; to greatly extend the culture's ability to apply and fit mathematical analysis to complex engineering tasks; to demonstrate a new engineering business structure generalizing Lockheed's "skunk works"; and was a test bed that the government and I hoped would let me find the "hidden problem" in applied mathematics that seemed crucial in missile guidance and much else.

I've been interested in AEA type organizations since 1969, and was encouraged to be. I've been interested in the technical problesms above since 1970, and was encouraged to be. In addition, I was interested in, and encouraged to be interested in, fighting and peacemaking, issues in crypto and engineering analogs of crypto, issue of machine translation and logic, and other things of interest to the government, and was encouraged to be. From 1970 on, I was given special attention in some ways similar to that given Will in the movie Good Will Hunting - - but without the rebellion - and I worked in ways that I thought, and government people I worked with thought, were the opposite of rebellions - the opposite of anti-social. I had some of the training that is in some inaccurate ways depicted in The Bourne Identity - - not as an assassin, but as background, and to see how I handled it. I was very concerned, and people around me were concerned, with the difficulties and instabilities treated in the movie The Sum of All Fears , and also the movie Thirteen Days - - and people thought, and I thought, that I could make a contribution. I worked hard to do so - for selfish reasons, and because I was concerned. I've continued to work on some of these issues on this thread. MD2000 rshow55 5/4/02 10:39am

I was given access to every piece of information about these issues that anybody thought I could possibly use, and any that I asked for. I wasn't as smart as Will is depicted as being, but I was reasonably able, and worked hard.

In January 1972 there was a problem. I refused a direct order - under great pressure - and there was an escalating fight. For reasons that I may have been wrong about, but felt strongly about, I could not be compelled to do what I was told to do. This produced an awkward situation.

rshow55 6/29/02 7:59am describes agreements and efforts growing out of that situation.

I will post a good deal more on this subject by 1:OO, NY time. I appreciate the chance the NYT has given me to post here, and the attention that gisterme and others who seem to have government associations have shown, as well.

rshow55 - 12:33pm Jun 29, 2002 EST (#2772 of 2779)

Want to say this before a more nutsy-boltsy filing that I'll also do by 1:00. I have tried hard to keep my agreements with Casey and the government, and believe that I have done so, insofar as I reasonably could have.

I believe that I could make a reasonable, perhaps convincing case that I have done so, if I were permitted to meet with a senior government officer, and a senior person on NYT staff, under circumstances that were recorded and preferably videotaped. I've been doing the best I can, fallibly and sometimes clumsily, but under circumstances where I've felt I had good reasons for the things I've done, and compelling reasons for the exceptions to "ordinary practice" that I have made from time to time.

I think Casey, or Eisenhower, George Marshall, Roosevelt, or Douglas McCarthur would have agreed, and that most "average readers of The New York Times" would be likely to agree as well.

rshow55 - 01:03pm Jun 29, 2002 EST (#2773 of 2779)

MD2771 rshow55 6/29/02 7:59am . . . includes sections noted with an * - for additional context.

On completion of tasks: Compensation: Soldier's pay. (Pay and pension equivalent to a successful military officer - back pay bearing reasonable interest. ) *

For purposes of calculating compensation and pension (to be paid only if I successfully completed tasks) I was to be paid "as if" I was an officer, graduating from West Point in 1969, in the 95th percentile. Back pay would be payable with "reasonable interest." Although compensation was important, it was not at the top of our minds, and the verbal agreement we had was clear in some ways, but incomplete or unclear in some others, to the best of my recollection. I felt confident that we had a clear meeting of the minds about "West Point '69) as a virtual standard, and about "reasonable interest." Mechanics of calculation were not discussed to a closure that I could swear to - - would Casey have counted the 95th percentile at graduation - or at some later time along career path? I'm not entirely clear. Casey and I did discuss "reasonable interest" in resolution of similar problems at "the prime rate plus 2%" -- and I felt then that he agreed to that in my case -- but I don't have a recollection of a clear, unambiguous "meeting of the minds" on that point. A calculation that I believe would be consistent with our understanding would be as follows:

. Take the pay of West Point '69 officers between the 94.5th and 95.5th percentile in their graduating class, remaining in the service, from '72 on -- there would be an average income stream and pension accrual for this cohort. The sum of that income stream, with accrued interest, would be the amount owed to me on this interpretation. For the assumption of interest at prime plus two, or for the assumption of any other interest rate schedule, this would be a definite sum.

. Pension accrual would be similarly calculated.

It has been a long time, and unforseen things have happened - but this is what Casey and I agreed to about back pay and pension, to the best of my recollection and reconstruction of verbal discussions long ago.

(6 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense