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 - 06:10pm Jan 11, 2003 EST (# 7594 of 7596)
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.

Things are sorting. If we can agree about some operationally small things (that may be "important in principle") then we can make peace.

Beautifully , from the point of view of all concerned - and giving everybody plenty of space.

But to constrain some thing must leave some others indeterminant - or inconsistent.

You can't change that - though in a statistical (or causal) sense you can shift magnitudes or weights - and there would be no free will, or hope, if that was changed.

We can do well enough. Step by step. And that can be very good. Though there are some tense times - where people have to agree - for a particular purpose - to defer or agree on a certain thing by convention.

God him-herself (if he-she-they-it) exists couldn't change that - though God might laugh or cry about it some times - when it was no crying or laughing matter to some of us.

Switching logic can only do some specific things - within the class of the serial numbers.

You can have any number of jumps from one class of the serial numbers setup to another - but there is no possibility of such jumps without shuffling some things - - though you can do pretty well.

If you're careful - the things that actually matter in a defined case can converge in a way that, I think, is beautiful in every way. Every step more orderly - or no less - more symettrical - or no less -- more harmonious - or no less.

But you have to be damn careful. I know a few things about doing that, if people take small steps - unless they are doing resorts they know a lot about - and unless they also accept that you CAN know some things if you check - but you can't know everything (except in a statistical sense) - which can be damn good.

rshow55 - 06:19pm Jan 11, 2003 EST (# 7595 of 7596)
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.

Sometimes I have to mix things up, too.

From causal to statistical steps - alternately one way - then alternately the other - trying for beauty. 112211221122 sequences work well 12121212 sequences work well (both for some things) and there are times where if you hope for decent canonicity you have to mix them up - with random sequences - and mixes which are alternate for a while - successive for a while in an orderly way. If you can watch the logic, at several levels (at least three at once) you can do pretty well about canonicity - though that is work. If steps are small enough - you're safe even if you can't.

Some sorts work best from the top down - - others from the bottom up - and if 1 is "top down" and 2 is "bottom up" the statements above apply analogously.

For some resorts - you have to mix up at one scale - not another.

For some resorts - you have to introduce a perturbation in a single place - and watch it progress in ways where the progression is predictable.

I'm being careful. But a person can only be so careful. It seems to me that a lot is sorting out - and I feel a lot better, and a lot differently - than I did yesterday.

People need to be careful. I like the following sermon from a number of points of view - the questions of "what matters" matter - it is important to "stay awake" - and some things work out better than they could. http://www.mrshowalter.net/sermon.html

Small steps are safer - and there are times when it is vital - in the old, bald sense, to be sure what fights are about - and how to keep score - and how big the fights are.

We also have to think about rematches.

We can do very well - even with a lot of roiling, boiling, and disagreement about a lot of things. We have to be careful.

We can all do MUCH better - from our own point of view - on the concerns that we can decently explain in public. Though some blushing may happen, in spots.

rshow55 - 06:23pm Jan 11, 2003 EST (# 7596 of 7596)
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.

If we accept that we're in a series solution situation - there are solutions. There are no humanly workable "solutions" that are absolutely stable - and all attempts to force them using big coercive steps are ugly and unstable. But cyclic solutions exist - there are many - and the oscillations around very stable cyclic solutions can be small - beautiful in themselves - and the cycling can be beautiful in its way, too.

The Americans and the N. Koreans have made progress. I will try to return a phone call now. I can't do everything - and I shouldn't. But I'm trying to be responsible - and other people, including Bill Richardson, are too.

I'd love to coach the N. Koreans about manufacturing engineering - but I would have no credentials to present about it in the ways that Americans find decisive. I don't have any paperwork proving some key facts. You'd have to look at my output - and judge to listen, or not.

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense