Missile Defense

These days, it seems that there is only a relatively short list of "big problems" between "big states."

Many of them monotonously similar in form.

All through the system, responses seem uncalibrated, and there are plenty of places where there seem to be sign errors.

rshowalter - 04:01pm May 14, 2001 EST (#3846 of 3849)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

FEEDBACK: A process used for control; normally has four steps;

(1) sense information ( how fast? .... how calibrated and fit to purpose? ..... how reliable?) ;

(2) process information ( how fast? .... how calibrated and fit to purpose? ..... how reliable?) ;

(3) compare processed information with a desired state (set point) ( how fast? .... how calibrated and fit to purpose? ..... how reliable?) ;

(4) if necessary, adjust to match set point. ( how fast? .... how calibrated and fit to purpose? ..... how reliable?)

There are several qualitatively distinct levels of complexity of feedback, and this definition applies to all of them. In the cases of importance to political and military balances, the internet, and some simple common sense, can get better answers to the questions: how fast? .... how calibrated and fit to purpose? ..... how reliable? than the answers we're using now.

Things can be done faster and in more ways including statistically independent ways, for crosschecking.

Things can be better calibrated and better fit to purpose, with the calibration and fit proceeding in more ways, including statistically independent ways, for crosschecking.

Because so much more information can be processed, from so many different sources, work can be more reliable

And, in the new internet world, there are many more ways to give positive feedback, or to inflict pain, on another nation state, in calibrated ways.

And new possibilites add to the things people have working already.

Nuclear weapons don't make much sense in such a world.

rshowalter - 04:05pm May 14, 2001 EST (#3847 of 3849)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

These days, in international relations, the answers to the questions

how fast? .... how calibrated and fit to purpose? ..... how reliable?

are much worse than they now could be , at many decisive places, all through our systems of interaction.

rshowalter - 04:12pm May 14, 2001 EST (#3848 of 3849)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Back in an hour.

Just a point. The world is taking terrible risks, and may end, and people in Russia and elsewhere have been terribly and unnecessarily injured, because our international interactions have been so crude.

An essential reason they've been crude, and stayed crude, is because deceptions that should not be possible have been possible.

rshowalter - 04:15pm May 14, 2001 EST (#3849 of 3849)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

To fix this, trust is not the answer, though trust is often useful, and often unavoidable.

Good will is not the answer -- there is plenty of that around already, and it often misfires -- though we could use more good-will, and less malice.

When it matters, we need better checking -- so we can get right answers, even in the absence of good will, or when trust is breached.

We have the resources, with reasonable work, to get that checking.

This thread illustrates some of the things that can now be done.

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense