New York Times on the Web Forums
Science
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.
(7879 previous messages)
rshow55
- 02:59pm Jan 21, 2003 EST (#
7880 of 7899)
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.
Anybody who wants to go to "end game" without a good many
cycles, from where we are - knows more than I do.
Casey had a penchant for "elegant" asymptotic solutions -
one shot to a completion - not enough thought about
adjustments, and end games - and though we talked about it - I
never could get him to see that, if you take a "right" action
- no matter how perfect you think it is - if you're to move
fast, you need to have two successive actions (if the first is
plus, a secondary -, and tertiary + ) ready to go - so that
contingencies can be met. Bin Laden and I both had problems
because Casey wasn't careful enough that way.
The UN has work to do - and time to spend. The US
has good reasons for some of the things it insists on - other
powers do, too - international law is not so much in being as
in nascency - and there is a lot of reason for people to "keep
talking" - - even if they feel sure of their position.
There are subcultures, some in American colleges, where it
used to be more or less assumed that a couple would get
engaged and have sex at almost the same time. In the ideal,
there would be a ring on her finger, and sexual completion in
an "indistinguishable" order. The ideal was to have the
negotiation go 'round and round - like lots of bird courtship
sequences - and have both sides tired, hot, and practicing
enough brinksmanship in a series of interactions with
metastable transitions so that - for the rest of their lives,
each side could argue, in any way that happened to be
convenient, whether the engagement or the sexual pairing was
consummated first.
Depending on circumstances, each might wish to take either
side, in a fight that mattered some to the parties, but not
too much, with themes or variations - some course - some quite
subtle.
Discussions with the parents or friends of the male and
female partner would be likely to get different stories - and
nobody could prove a thing.
Such "fights" can, and often did, become formats wherein
the couple could negotiate a lot of other things - without
anybody violating anybody too badly - so that finer
calibrations in the partnership could occur than might have
been possible otherwise. Sometimes, they could also be a way
of getting laughs or cries when these were useful for release.
I was hoping for such a scenario with Marti - but she died a
few days too early for me to have the chance.
Alliances have "useful disagreements" that dither
negotiations in an analogous way. With animals, there are some
analogies in "displacement activity" that becomes a sort of
stylized oscillatory, repeatable dance. When things are tense,
and conflicted, such dances can be useful.
Oscillatory solutions in the Middle East and the Korean
peninsula are avaliable -- very, very good ones. Stable
static solutions are not, so far as I can see. It seems to
me that everybody involved ought to think carefully
about what they actually need - and what they can
concede - and people need to take some time. Fighting - and
biter words - may have their place - but draconian
simplifications can only hurt just now, it seems to me.
Sorry for moving slowly. I've been doing some selfish
sweating. But it seems to me that people need to be careful
not to "solve" things too quickly, when much better results
will be available if people take time.
mazza9
- 04:26pm Jan 21, 2003 EST (#
7881 of 7899) "Quae cum ita sunt" Caesar's Gallic
Commentaries
Robert says: "Sorry for moving slowly. I've been doing some
selfish sweating. But it seems to me that people need to be
careful not to "solve" things too quickly, when much better
results will be available if people take time."
What he means is if anyone but him "solves" a problem it
isn't solved because only he can arbitrate/determine whether a
problem is solved!
Robert by definition "solve" means that the correct answer
to a particular question has been derived. Your intervention
is not sought or desired.
So you're pumping iron so that you can solve Lunarchick's
problems. Are you preparing for "Survivor" or "American Idol?"
Good Luck!
gisterme
- 05:02pm Jan 21, 2003 EST (#
7882 of 7899)
rshow55 - 02:59pm Jan 21, 2003 EST (# 7880...)
"...Oscillatory solutions in the Middle East and the
Korean peninsula are avaliable -- very, very good ones..."
For example??? You've never quite explained what you mean
by an "oscillatory solution", Robert. I've asked before.
Here's your chance.
"...Stable static solutions are not, so far as I can
see..."
Stability does not imply stasis. For example, the
situation on the Korean Penensula has been stable for
about 50 years. Less than optimal, but stable. However, SK has
managed to move forward econmically and to become a
responsible, peaceful and valuable member of the world. SK is
a major player in the Asian economic game and significant in
the world economy.
The NK dictatorship on the other hand has desperatly clung
to its internal power structure, isolated itself in so doing,
and because of that, finds itself left behind by the rest of
the world. Devoid of any economic power, all NK can do is
threaten war.
To me that's an interesting and revealing contrast.
(17 following messages)
New York Times on the Web Forums
Science
Missile Defense
|