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 - 04:32pm Jun 28, 2001 EST (#6233 of 6242)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

For situations complicated enough -- there is no "simple solution" and no "simple justice" -- weighting is crucial -- and tradeoffs have to be made. But sometimes, when things become clear, they can be well made - - and made in ways that are satisfying.

I've been hoping, on matters of nuclear and convetional military balance, to come to solutions that are really satisfying to all the people concerned. In a situation that has long been an ugly mess.

I've thought it ought to be possible -- and have been hoping, and working, for something I'd call, technically, a "redemptive and detonative" solution. Let me put up a note I wrote in the "How the Brain Works" forum, no longer available -- illustrating what I thought was a "redemptive and detonative" solution, shaping up for me in the neurosciences.

I'm using the notion of "detonative in a way that Chain Breakers: http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee79f4e/618 explains, and the notion of "redemptive" in a way set out in Secular Redemption: http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?13@@.ee79f4e/619

It seems to me that this posting is on point, and fits some things I've been hoping for.

The note is obsolete, because what I was hoping for then has been postponed by my efforts on this MISILE DEFENSE thread, -- efforts that I've thought important enough to give priority. But the points it makes -- about human difficulties and accomodation -- fit here.

rshowalter - 04:35pm Jun 28, 2001 EST (#6234 of 6242)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

From HOW THE BRAIN WORKS

rshowalter - 05:10pm Jan 21, 2001 EST (#2203 of 2204)

In rshowalter 1/9/01 8:06am I said that I owed people, especially people at the NYT, and readers of these forums, explanations and apologies. I spent some days of uninterrupted time, trying to figure out how to adequately apologize and thank people on these forums, and at THE NEW YORK TIMES for the kindness and forbearance that they've shown me.

I’m finding that my situation is humanly complicated enough so that, if I am to avoid injustice to myself and others, I have to move very carefully, and in some cases, wait for events, and hope for grace, and the chance to be graceful.

Right now, things I’ve been working for, and putting people to trouble for, seem to be working out near-perfectly. Right now, paradigm conflict impasse and all, it looks like pieces are coming together for a resolution that, if well documented, would stand as a fine exemplary case, for how paradigm conflict impasses can be gracefully, efficiently, and expeditiously solved. It isn’t that the right answer has been determined, though after many trained hours the Showalter-Kline work is still being considered. But right or wrong, the solution will be determined. In a way that fits necessary academic usages. It may be dangerous to write at times where there is too much hope, with things unsettled. Doubtless it is. I wish my old friend and partner, Professor Steve Kline, of Stanford were alive now, he’d be astonished and pleased at how well things have gone recently. http://www.wisc.edu/rshowalt/klinerec . Steve and I have gotten much more than we ever hoped for from these forums, and people of the TIMES.

I’ve been in an enormously conflicted situtaion in human terms, and so have people involved with me – many of whom have helped me well above and beyond the call of duty, and shown stunning good faith, and endurance. I’ve had difficulties, most partly of my own making. I’ ve spent some days thinking about how my actions and impositions must have seemed to others, and trying to take responsibility, and do justice, in a sitution which can, and now does, look ugly to many. I’ve found it hard – many good people have good reasons to be displeased with me. Even so, I’m hopeful that some very good things are about to happen, that could not have possibly happened without the care, kindness, generosity, brilliance, industry, and forebearance of these forums, and THE NEW YORK TIMES, an institution I’ve been imposing on, simply because I thought, and Steve Kline thought, that the TIMES was the only place where we could get help we needed, on a job we felt morally compelled to do.

Right or wrong, I believe that some extremely good things are going to happen, and want to see that they do happen. Whether I’m right or wrong, I believe that they can be and will be resolved in a redemptive and detonative way. Redemptive in this technical sense: I believe these matters will resolve in a way that is constructive and fair to all concerned, with no need for hiding or evading what actually happened, and with lessons clear. Detonative in this sense – I believe that the facts and ideas established will propagate through the culture quickly and cleanly, instead of fizzling or being contained in counterproductive ways. Here are good things that I expect to be shown, or clearly disproved.

A mistake or oversight, more than three centuries old, will be shown so that it can be corrected in applied math, engineering, and scientific applications, starting from about 1690. I believe that the strengthened modeling procdures that will result, and the corrected math to be expected. will produce new opportunities widely in sciences and applications.

(8 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense