New York Times Readers Opinions
The New York Times

Home
Job Market
Real Estate
Automobiles
News
International
National
Washington
Business
Technology
Science
Health
Sports
New York Region
Education
Weather
Obituaries
NYT Front Page
Corrections
Opinion
Editorials/Op-Ed
Readers' Opinions


Features
Arts
Books
Movies
Travel
Dining & Wine
Home & Garden
Fashion & Style
Crossword/Games
Cartoons
Magazine
Week in Review
Multimedia
College
Learning Network
Services
Archive
Classifieds
Book a Trip
Personals
Theater Tickets
Premium Products
NYT Store
NYT Mobile
E-Cards & More
About NYTDigital
Jobs at NYTDigital
Online Media Kit
Our Advertisers
Member_Center
Your Profile
E-Mail Preferences
News Tracker
Premium Account
Site Help
Privacy Policy
Newspaper
Home Delivery
Customer Service
Electronic Edition
Media Kit
Community Affairs
Text Version
TipsGo to Advanced Search
Search Options divide
go to Member Center Log Out
  

 [F] 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.


Earliest Messages Previous Messages Recent Messages Outline (9011 previous messages)

rshow55 - 04:17pm Feb 16, 2003 EST (# 9012 of 9016) Delete Message
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.

Kline's Index of complexity -- V + P + L < C < V times P times L ... a key reason why truth is critical for good function in complex systems.

MD1133 rshowalter 3/17/01 6:13pm ... MD1134 rshowalter 3/17/01 6:17pm MD1135 rshowalter 3/17/01 6:19pm ... MD1136 rshowalter 3/17/01 6:24pm MD1138 rshowalter 3/17/01 7:20pm ... MD1139 lunarchick 3/17/01 7:47pm MD1140 lunarchick 3/17/01 7:52pm ...

http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md01000s/md1131_1137.htm

http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md01000s/md1137_1145.htm

The need for 3 views -- the need to account for positions that have "some of the truth, but not all of it."

MD1143 rshowalter 3/17/01 8:03pm ... MD1144 rshowalter 3/17/01 8:04pm MD1145 rshowalter 3/17/01 8:22pm

http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md01000s/md1137_1145.htm

MD1150 rshowalter 3/17/01 9:57pm ... http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md01000s/md1148_1150.htm

The dialog went on, and we got onto some crucial information, I felt, about economic efficiency, which I set out in:

MD1394 rshowalter 3/23/01 5:30pm ... MD1395 rshowalter 3/23/01 5:36pm MD1396 rshowalter 3/23/01 5:38pm ... MD1397 rshowalter 3/23/01 5:41pm MD1398 rshowalter 3/23/01 5:43pm ... MD1399 rshowalter 3/23/01 5:51pm MD1400 rshowalter 3/23/01 5:53pm . and, for emphasis, ... MD 1401 rshowalter 3/23/01 5:56pm

It is important for Russians to talk more informatively and reliably among themselves, and with others.

MD1402 rshowalter 3/23/01 5:58pm ... MD1403 rshowalter 3/23/01 6:22pm MD1404 rshowalter 3/23/01 6:33pm ...

MD1405-8 rshowalter 3/23/01 6:37pm

A key point that should be common ground, for all the disappointment and bitterness: MD1409 rshowalter 3/23/01 7:10pm

And I suggested an exercise in MD1410-1415 rshowalter 3/23/01 7:30pm

http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md01000s/md1394.htm

http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md01000s/md1402.htm

http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md01000s/md1409_1418.htm

After that week of dialog, I felt I understood the Russians better, and hoped that, if the Russians could understand these things, they might be able to sort out some of their internal and international problems better than before.

rshow55 - 04:18pm Feb 16, 2003 EST (# 9013 of 9016) Delete Message
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.

I don't know if it has worked. But it seems to me that the Russians have done pretty well in a lot of areas since March 2001, and almarst , Dawn and I have kept talking. (As of July 24, 2001, there were 6258 postings since we cited "Muddle in Moscow" http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=533129 )

We've also had a lot of dialog with our "Bush administration stand-in" gisterme , starting with a powerful one in his first posting .. MD2997 gisterme 5/2/01 1:09pm ...

http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md2993.htm

http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md2000s/md2998.htm

that has clarified a lot. ( For a full listing of gisterme's postings - see 8835 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.lwUaajj03k6.0@.f28e622/10361 almarst has paid attention to gisterme's dialog.

Has all this work been useful? Dawn and I have tried to make it so.

It seems me that, if Bill Casey was looking down, he might be smiling.

Maybe laughing at me. Hard to know.

_ _ _ _ _ _

Much dialog has occurred since gisterme joined the forum in May, 2001 - -- and I believe that this thread has made a contribution, either as a prototype, or as an actual (though deniable) channel of communication - after a long time when lines of communication between the US and Russia were astonishingly sparse.

1999 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@71.pC4Ea5uwJT6^0@.f28e622/2484

More Messages Recent Messages (3 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Your Preferences

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  / Missile Defense





Home | Back to Readers' Opinions Back to Top


Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company | Privacy Policy | Contact Us