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 - 06:01pm Jun 28, 2001 EST (#6243 of 6250)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

May well be longer -- and that just to make a start . . . but I'm trying.

armel7 - 06:48pm Jun 28, 2001 EST (#6244 of 6250)
Science/Health Forums Host

rshowalter -- Regarding your question to me in post #5995 (sorry I missed it, but given the volume of posts ;^)

I can say that in the academic physics community (which is quite liberal contrary to popular Dr. Strangelove impressions) there is a great deal of skepticism about the workings of missile defense. In the spring Dr. Hans Mark of the DoD and University fo Texas spoke at Berkeley on the subject. His talk was riddled with questions from scientists in the audience which called into question the feasibility of BMD. Yes, it was Berkeley, but I think that the reception was repsentative of what to expect in the leading institutions.

Of course, this could well be a case of liberal political bias...

Your host,
Michael Scott Armel

gisterme - 06:59pm Jun 28, 2001 EST (#6245 of 6250)

possumdag asks:

"...GI: answer this question

Which came first the chicken or the egg ?

then substitute

Which came first 'the game' or the 'umpire' ?..."

Can't answer the chicken/egg question for sure, possumdag; but my guess would be neither. What came first was the genetic mutation or recombination. Hmmm. In that case I suppose it WOULD be the egg that came first.

The game/umpire question seems much simpler. You can watch most any nature show on TV that deals with mammals to observe that adolescent mammals play all the time. No umpires required.

Young humans also play games without umpires. I suppose that if the idea of the umpire or referee had not been invented then humans would't play games beyond adolescence either. The umpire/referee is just a way to continue the "fun" experience of game playing, learned in childhood, beyond adolescence without killing each other. :-) So, to answer your question, I'd say the game definately came first.

gisterme - 07:18pm Jun 28, 2001 EST (#6246 of 6250)

"...Of course, this could well be a case of liberal political bias..."

I doubt that Michael. It's just that scientists/techologists are pretty specialized, like physicians. Many focus on very narrow fields of research and may not be aware of what those in other fields, especially WRT technological developments, are doing or can do. Of course this is all complicated by the fact that most military research is classified.

lunarchick - 07:40pm Jun 28, 2001 EST (#6247 of 6250)
lunarchick@www.com

.. So what you're really saying is that as games get more complex, and the rule book longer, then, there has to be more thought given as to how a 'game' plays out.

With respect to MD .. if this game isn't played out properly, not only the people, but, the entire earth could be paralysed.

The chicken/egg; game/umpire; MD/strategy .. are complex, all derivatives from simple beginnings.

I recall Showalter saying, he takes complex problems, works with them over the longer period, bringing them down to bare basics .. and looks for simpler solutions. With respect to MD I've heard him say ...
'they are dangerous' ..
'unstable' ..
'statisitically - the chances are high
that a weapon will go off - and soon' .. and to this surreal and complex matter his solution was to
'Take 'em down'
Showalter - a link back to (was it) September please!

rshowalter - 07:43pm Jun 28, 2001 EST (#6248 of 6250)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

The point gisterme raised to me doesn't have my head spinning - exactly -- but it does have me re-examining some of my assumptions -- I think I've been slow to see some things. But a main thing that occurs to me is that, partly because of fuzziness in expressions of my own, neither almarst , nor gisterme could answer the following question subject to a single kind of public crossexamination:

What is it that you want to happen , based on facts you know -- just in terms of the interests you represent?

The crossexamination would be limited to a single line --

. can you reasonably want that -- do you reasonably want that -- in light of the facts?

If we had definitions that far it would , it seems to me, be a great accomplishment. And a great accomplishment for almarst and gisterme - both in terms of their own understandings, and their negotiations (or at least, implicit and thought through interactions) with their spheres of responsibility.

We may not be so far from that -- and if I'd done my job better, we might be closer than we are to that.

But we're not there yet. And partly because of fuzziness on my part.

I'm trying to figure out how I might clean up my part.

It seems to me, guessing, but having thought about it a little, that if almarst and gisterme were clear about what they could reasonably want, from their own point of interest exclusively, but in public, and in light of facts --- THEN a " game" could be defined pretty quickly - in a way everybody could agree to --

And there might turn out to be surprisingly few conflicts - the "game" might play out pretty nicely, from the point of view of all concerned.

Problem is, in part, that I haven't been asking the right questions -- still may not be on the right track. I'm working on it.

(2 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense