New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

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?

rshowalter - 07:37pm Mar 16, 2001 EST (#1112 of 1119)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

There are plenty of frightening scenarios. I figure that the statistical "expected number of deaths per day" is about 1.6 million deaths a day -- enough to keep me motivated.

Just a quick money calculation -- if the average death had an "insurance" value of 1,000 bucks, not much after all, even for the third world -- that would be 1.6 BILLION dollars "expected loss" per day. Or for 10,000$/person killed, 16 billion$/day.

Now, for about ONE SECONDS's (or a tenth second's) worth of "expected loss" you could go a long way towards getting rshowalter 3/15/01 7:52pm --- and it would be worth it, just as good journalism, setting aside that it could save the world.

If Americans, Russians and others looked at a package that could work for getting nukes down, and getting military balances stable -- rational enough decisions would be made, I believe. At least good enough decisions to keep the world going.

lunarchick - 07:41pm Mar 16, 2001 EST (#1113 of 1119)
lunarchick@www.com

Just checking on baseball terminology : http://www.sportsnmore.com/baseball/ http://www.findarticles.com/m1208/22_224/62650035/p1/article.jhtml

"As far back as 1900, pitchers squawked about umpires' calls and there were complaints about competitive imbalance among teams"

Equate this with takes and bribes: "You think today's extravagant salaries are ruining the game?"

Equate with limiting MD "solution was the same one tried unsuccessfully 100 years later--collusion; at a certain level there would be no more offers made to players that would reach exorbitant levels"

Equate with something thought but not spoken today: ""1889, the universal complaint was, "All the players talk about is money. That's all they are interested in." ""

Equate this with 1/3 of the USA budget to defense: "Too much money is hurting major league baseball." as in too much money, wrongly directed is threatening the world.

Equate this with not knowing how to move forward: "ballplayers of today do not take their profession seriously enough. They are unwilling to take the infinite pains necessary to overcome their faults and increase what natural ability they possess" 1916

Iron curtain: http://www.dingwall.bc.ca/history/main.php3?cat=terminology&listing=Iron_Curtain http://www.apps.com/category.asp?catid=169 http://cybersleuth-kids.com/sleuth/History/Twentieth_Century/Cold_War/

vietnam terminology : http://grunt.space.swri.edu/glossary.htm

lunarchick - 07:43pm Mar 16, 2001 EST (#1114 of 1119)
lunarchick@www.com

"if the average death had an "insurance" value of 1,000 bucks, not much after all, even for the third world -- that would be 1.6 BILLION dollars "expected loss" per day. Or for 10,000$/person killed, 16 billion$/day. "

So how would the baseball manager think in respect of this. What's the top baseball team in the USA worth?

lunarchick - 07:43pm Mar 16, 2001 EST (#1115 of 1119)
lunarchick@www.com

and how does it equate with ONE THIRD of the USA's annual budget?

lunarchick - 07:47pm Mar 16, 2001 EST (#1116 of 1119)
lunarchick@www.com

What i'm trying to do is to 'think' in 'thinkable' terms ... too many noughts at the end of a figure make it meaningless .. whereas if it can be factored onto a KNOWN .. then it has Eureka meaningfullness!!

lunarchick - 07:50pm Mar 16, 2001 EST (#1117 of 1119)
lunarchick@www.com

If numbers of people are killed -- it means little, but, if a person who one can identify with is to die .. then it is meaningful. Take the Indian Earthquake and El Salvadorian earthquakes .. not much relief effort from the world, and compare with the shake in Seattle .. where one guy died of heart failure ... Human value systems are skewed to the familiar or perceived powerful.

lunarchick - 07:55pm Mar 16, 2001 EST (#1118 of 1119)
lunarchick@www.com

Say a missile were pointing at a city, and within that city lived a person(s) who the world had watched grow-up and felt close to, then this would have more meaning 'That x would die in a missile attach' than merely to say the city of Y will be Say a missile were pointing at a city, and within that city lived a person(s) who the world had watched grow-up and felt close to, then this would have more meaning 'That x would die in a missile attach' than merely to say the city of Y will be annihilated -- an ugly consequence -- but is it really meaninful? (were it meaningful more people would be out on the streets with 'stop' signs) -- an ugly consequence -- but is it really meaninful? (were it meaningful more people would be out on the streets with 'stop' signs)

rshowalter - 07:58pm Mar 16, 2001 EST (#1119 of 1119)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

I've been walking around, for years, figuring that everyone I ever looked at, ever cared about, would die, if things screwed up. Which kept on, for years, looking likely to happen. But more recently, as I've learned some more, I've gotten more concerned.

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense