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 - 08:59am Nov 19, 2002 EST (# 5956 of 5960)
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.

Kalter, I'm glad you referred to rshow55 11/18/02 7:46am - - I like it, too. Perhaps we might be able to rule out all the other approaches to missile defense that have been publicised - that have soaked up so many resources - that have diverted so much attention from fundamental nuclear risks - except, of course - for your shield - pending (ahem) prototype testing?

http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/296

rshow55 - 09:07am Nov 19, 2002 EST (# 5957 of 5960)
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.

almarst2002 11/18/02 10:55pm asks

"You don't believe we would start to "behave rationaly" do you?"

Well maybe a little rationally. Maybe even just a little more rationally. Perhaps that wouldn't be so hard - there's some room for slight improvements, maybe.

Just now I'm wondering why it shouldn't be possible to address all of Almarst's concerns pretty well - at the same time meeting the objectives that the United States can actually explain, consistently and in public.

Seems to me that a lot of things have gone pretty well in the last ten weeks ( not denying the little imperfections referred to in almarst2002 11/18/02 10:47pm - - ) The things almarst says about the negotiations are all probably true enough - but the nations that voted had some discretion within their constraints -- quite a bit actually - and squeezes by the US are not the whole story. I wouldn't be surprised if there were even some other squeezes, at similar levels, by some other parties at interest, as well.

A lot of times, trial and error works well, if people are careful, and keep at it, and are in a zone of convergence.

Are we in a "zone of convergence" on some key things? Maybe - and you don't have to deny any ugliness - or any stupidity, to think so.

When people "keep talking" and look at how what is said matches other dialog, and what can be checked connected to objective facts - even the objective facts of other dialogs - there are only so many consistent views that can hold up.

A big objective of this thread is showing, using techniques that can accomodate the needs of staffed organizations, how it is possible to "collect the dots" so that it is humanly possible to "connect the dots." With room for umpiring - and public involvement - in a lot of different ways.

Often (if you look at human affairs, this isn't at all rare) people actually come to satisfactory answers.

Some of them are even beautiful and simple.

I'm pretty hopeful just now - and anyway, things are interesting.

lunarchick - 10:23am Nov 19, 2002 EST (# 5958 of 5960)

^{Hypnotherapy - Might assist 'The Poster' ... how did you go in 'your' EngLitExam ... Next Creative Writing}

(2 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense