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 - 01:49pm Jul 13, 2002 EST (#3043 of 3046)

Often, it can't be done without facing facts - - about the world, about ourselves, and about other people.

A big step is to strip away lies that have locked one, enchained one, in webs of deceptions - from which it is necessary to break free.

If only people knew, and taught, and expected, the simple lesson set out in rshow55 7/13/02 1:07pm !

rshow55 - 08:57pm Jul 13, 2002 EST (#3044 of 3046)

A number of the problems set out already in MD2065 rshow55 5/7/02 2:06pm are still problems -- because I need answers that I can use, either in writing, or easily traceable -- so that I can meet the credentialling needs the US is built for.

So far, because I have nothing in writing, and nothing checkable, I don't have a "deal" with the government -- especially with the C.I.A.

Even so, it seems to me that a lot of "progress" has been made, and Bill Casey would have been pleased with the progress. But things have to close.

If I called up somebody at M.I.T., or Cornell, or U.W. , or the State Department, and asked to be given a chance to talk - some issues of status would, of course occur. As they should. But uncertainties about classification status would also occur -- and the answers that work in a bureaucracy have to be concise and easily checked. I don't have such answers now. I think I need them, deserve them, and have a right to fight for them.

So there's a problem to be fixed. The cleanest, easiest way to do that - - would be for me and the other people involved to find a solution that "the average reader of The New York Times"; " the average reader of The Wall Street Journal " ; "the average reader of The National Enquirer" " and the average clergyman of any of the major religions could all respect.

An agreement that voters who are Democrats and Republicans could also respect.

Doesn't seem so hard to me. Progress has been made, including some today.

We've got things to hope for, and things to do. Some Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate are showing some wisdom and courage. That's good news. Some worthwhile things, I believe, have also been worked through on this thread.

MD1999 rshow55 5/4/02 10:35am ... MD2000 rshow55 5/4/02 10:39am
MD2001 rshow55 5/4/02 11:36am

If a simple rhyme became a "nursery rhyme" - - the world would be, after a little time, wiser, more prosperous, and safer. MD3036 rshow55 7/13/02 1:07pm

rshow55 - 10:34pm Jul 13, 2002 EST (#3045 of 3046)

To Err Is Human By GEORGE JOHNSON http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/14/weekinreview/14JOHN.html?pagewanted=print&position=top

"The issue here is nothing so lofty as human versus artificial intelligence. What lay in the balance was a simple decision: up or down, 1 or 0. "

Human beings, for fundamenal reasons, have problems with just such "simple decisions." If you are built to check patterns sign errors, especially large scale ones - can be hard to catch. You may have to check a number of things, together, in several ways -- before you catch key errors about sign - at the level of "up" or "down."

An old best seller was titled "Been down so long, it looks like UP to me." The title says something about the human condition - and the dangers we face. Sometimes completely wrong answers look right to "careful" people, who we trust. Or to ourselves.

We need to be careful. And to check. "Safeties" and triggers have a certain grim family resemblance.

"Maximize stability" -- wait a while - and you may have built in an explosive instability.

We have to be careful, lest the world end.

Johnson continues:

"Adept as machines are at calculation, people are said to be imbued with something higher: judgment. There is a lot packed into that word — carefully weighing conflicting information, drawing on an accumulation of experience, learning from mistakes, tempering cold analysis with moral values, altruism and a healthy instinct for survival.

"BUT the more complex a system, the more there is to go wrong. The popular notion has it that we use only 10 percent of our brain power, when in truth it seems to take 110 percent just to muddle through the day.

With checking , we can sometimes simplify some key things very greatly -- by finding out some things that we really can be sure of. By asking "what matters?" systematically. The last word in this sermon is "judgement" and the last few seconds are especially worth hearing. http://www.wisc.edu/rshowalt/sermon.html

Getting right answers, that work at the level of internal consistency, and that fit checkable facts is a moral imperative -- because right answers matter so much to us, and to everyone and everything we care about.

We can do better than we're doing. Conventions that say "no checking" should be subject to careful examination. So that we can choose life, and beauty, rather than death, and ugliness. On missile defense, and many other issues.

(1 following message)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense