![[F]](../_images/site.gif) New York Times on the Web Forums  Science
Russian military leaders have expressed concern about US plans
for a national missile defense system. Will defense technology be
limited by possibilities for a strategic imbalance? Is this just SDI
all over again?
    (986 previous messages)
rshowalter
- 08:54am Mar 14, 2001 EST (#987
of 994) 
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu
Crewman
Testifies in Sub Collision Inquiry . ... . .. by ...THE ASSOCIATED
PRESS is part of a larger story of how a major US
military socio-technical system came to malfunction very badly. The
story speaks, as others have done, about the strong and forceful
ties that exist in the military, and of the terrible dangers of a
"command style" that must, nonetheless, often be used in the
military. Because, in battle, rapid and utterly efficient obedience
is an imperitive. So there is a problem of balance -- and no
perfectly satisfactory answer. Here is a case where, in retrospect,
it would seem that a bad balance was struck.
. " A week before the USS Greeneville collided
with a Japanese boat, a crewman aboard the submarine suggested the
skipper tone down his forceful command style to let subordinates
learn better but was rebuffed. ...........The Greeneville's
navigator, Lt. Keith Sloan, testified Tuesday that Cmdr. Scott
Waddle responded that junior officers ``would learn from him
telling them what to do.''
Military forces can make mistakes, and do a poor job of handling
technical problems, in part because coercion is essential in their
function in battle.
For this reason, forceful expercises of "command style" have to
be questioned, for specific fit to context.
The statement
- ``I would resist with all my moral fiber the
idea that we would willingly or knowingly try to bring aboard a
program -- the V-22 or anything else -- that we've so fallen in
love with that we would put people at risk,'' he said. ``We just
simply wouldn't do that, and I don't think we've done that.''
is a very forceful act that closes off necessary lines of
question.
Similar forceful acts happen elsewhere, and when they do, the
military cannot be trusted to get right answers, that serve either
its own interests of the interests of the country.
A person in a military operation, who asked for "the truth above
all" in such a circumstance would not be respected for his moral
fiber. He would be laughed at.
almarst-2001
- 02:13pm Mar 14, 2001 EST (#988
of 994)
Robert,
What do you think about this -
WHY ARE WE IN KO$OVO? - http://128.121.216.19/justin/justincol.html
rshowalter
- 04:21pm Mar 14, 2001 EST (#989
of 994)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu
As a sighting shot, I noticed this in the article you sighted:
. Conspiracy theories are not irrational, per
se: for, as Murray N. Rothbard pointed out, the belief that
erroneous and harmful government policies are pursued as a result
of intellectual error overlooks the reality that statism – "a
massive system of economic exploitation of the productive many by
the parasitic few" – is "in the rational self-interest of the
exploiters." Somebody benefits from our foreign policy of
perpetual war for perpetual "peace" – and, in this case, it is
Chevron, Exxon, BP Amoco, AMBO, etc. ad nauseum."
Is this true and balanced?
From where I sit, it is worth consideration (not
deference.)
This seems clear to me - lies are dangerous, both when they
result in irrational behavior, and when they result in predatory
behavior.
We need to get clearer on how to establish the TRUTH - at the
level of checkable fact - under controversial circumstances.
For example, the GUARDIAN reported on August 18, 2000 http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a399d43976bee.html
that Serb killings, which the Western press said were up to 100,000
dead -- were under 3000. (set out in THE KOSVO FRAUD - WILL THEY
EVER ADMIT IT? http://128.121.216.19/justin/j082100.html
)
It is vital, if the world is to run decently for us to do a MUCH
better job of establishing facts than we have.
The obligation to determine facts, where the facts matter, should
be morally forcing in proportion to the importance of the
actions.
The question "How do you check?" should be asked much more
frequently and effectively.
For all the problems of a new medium, and the diversity of
voices, the internet is making this more possible than it used to
be.
For PEACE, we need to be more open, and better informed. Lies are
dangerous. Deceptions are dangerous. And mistakes are dangerous.
These are all VERY GOOD REASONS for getting rid of the most
indiscriminate and destructive weapons - including nuclear weapons.
rshowalter
- 04:35pm Mar 14, 2001 EST (#990
of 994)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu
rshowalter
2/9/01 1:53pm In "Beauty" http://www.everreader.com/beauty.htm
Mark Anderson quotes Heisenberg's definition of beauty in the exact
sciences:
" Beauty is the proper conformity of the parts
to one another and to the whole."
SUGGESTED DEFINITION: Good theory is an attempt to produce beauty
in Heisenberg's sense in a SPECIFIC context of assumption and data.
Goodness can be judged in terms of that context, and also the fit
with other contexts that, for logical reasons, have to fit together.
The beauty, and ugliness, of a theory can be judged, in terms of
the context it was built for, and other contexts, including the
context provided by data not previously considered.
Everything has to fit together (and, I think, be clearly
describable in words, pictures, and quantitative descriptions,
linked together comfortably and workably, both as far as internal
consistency goes, and in terms of fit to what the theory
(descriptive idea) is supposed to apply to in action.
Maybe we ought not to reject conspiracy theories -- which CAN
make a lot of sense, and which, as a matter of history, DO explain a
great deal. Maybe, by doing so, we shortchange ourselves, and the
whole world. Maybe we ought to test such theories for beauty -- to
fit with facts --- and take plenty of care to see that the facts fit
together.
 
(4 following messages)
  
 
New York Times on the Web Forums Science
Missile Defense
| 
