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.

gisterme - 08:06pm Mar 9, 2003 EST (# 9723 of 9726)

rshow55 - 10:08am Mar 9, 2003 EST (# 9696 of ...) http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.7nuoa5EH5Da.944466@.f28e622/11238

NASA'S CURSE? 'Groupthink' Is 30 Years Old, and Still Going Strong By JOHN SCHWARTZ and MATTHEW L. WALD http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/09/weekinreview/09SCHW.html

"...He called groupthink "a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members' strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action." It is the triumph of concurrence over good sense, and authority over expertise..."

That's a very astute observation that no doubt has a significant aspect of truth to it. However, that notion collides head-on with the fact that some problems are too large to be solved or even managed by a single individual or a group of loose cannons.

The fact would seem to be that despite the best efforts of any group, NASA included, absolute perfection in craftsmanship, management or human judgement is a statistically unacheivable goal. NASA consists of humans.

If poor craftsmanship or design turns out to be the cause of the Columbia tragedy (as I expect it will) about all that can be done now is to learn from the mistake and try to correct it as was done after the Challenger accident. We mustn't forget that space technology is pushing the extreme edge of our technological envelope.

I would add that even if NASA management knew that the Columbia reentry would be dangerous or even if they knew it was likely to end as it did, what would have been the point of making that public knowledge prior to the fact? Since nothing could have been done about it I can see no point.

All such a public proclamation would have accomplished is make the last couple of weeks of the crew's lives miserable. In my view, that would have amounted to a cruel and unnecessary punishment of the innocent. The Columbia crew were doing what they loved and had dreamed of doing. To have spoiled that would have done them a great and unnecessary dishonor.

Those who want to point fingers and sling accusations should keep that in mind, particularly those in the media who think they may have missed the opportunity to cause a sensational (and profitable) two weeks of public misery. Some ideals must be placed above self service.

On the other hand, honesty and forthrightness on the part of NASA after the fact is equally important. NASA needs to be about the business of identifying and solving the problem unhindered by mud-slinging. There's an International Space Station up there that's at the leading edge of all-time human acheivement. Until there's a better alternative, the Shuttle is necessary to service and complete it.

If it is learned that whatever turns out to be the fatal flaw was previously known and should have been acknowledged and repaired that's a thing that should be dealt with quietly, keeping in mind that absolute perfection in judgement is not a quality found in humans. If that's the approach to any necessary managerial corrections then the truth of the problem is much more likely to be found and fixed quickly.

Lessons learned, especially hard lessons, only improve subsequent performance whether they be at at the individaual, group, national or world scale. If someone at NASA needs to be sacked, so be it; but any replacement will have had to learn the same hard lesson vicarously. In my view, first hand experience is the best of teachers.

gisterme - 09:05pm Mar 9, 2003 EST (# 9724 of 9726)

rshow55 - 07:48pm Mar 9, 2003 EST (# 9721 of ...) http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.7nuoa5EH5Da.944466@.f28e622/11263

"...You can't, very often, have leaders or groups agreeing on

" who is the bad guy?"..."

You seem to be missing the point, Robert. Nobody disagrees that Saddam is a brutal dictator and in general, a bad guy.

The problem is that certain leaders don't want to admit that they've bet their respective countries' farms on the expectation of good will from such a man ( or worse ); they don't want their publics to realize how naive they've been in their leadership.

Such leaders would rather see other leaders (such as our own president or the British PM) shirk their duty to protect their own publics than to have to admit their own foolishness.

The only reason I can imagine that certain governments would want to protect a murderer like Saddam and prolong the agony of the Iraqi people is because they expect that their own ox will be gored upon Saddam's demise. How like children they're acting, kicking and screaming rather than just taking their medicine! The truth is going to come out anyway so why not at least be on the right side?

Simple denial by such men would surely be their political undoing even if they were just stupid. I don't believe they are. I think that the truth coming out about their relations with Saddam must seem a much larger threat to them than just being perceived as "in denial" or stupid. Their one slim hope of survival is to somehow prevent the truth from coming out.

I don't expect the President of the United States, British PM and others are in the mood for playing that game. After all, it's their own publics that they're sworn to defend, not the careers or hidden agendas of foreign politicians.

Perhaps Saddam has a nuke after all. What a tragedy the revelation of that would cause, especially for those found to be responsible after the dust settles. I sincerely hope there's nothing that bad; but there's certainly got to be somthing ugly that's hidden. Where there's smoke, there's fire.

(2 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense