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 - 02:49pm Aug 31, 2001 EST (#8265 of 8273)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Excellent points !

And to the threats you mention, applez101 8/31/01 2:07pm .... , the BEST defense is the defense natural to human groups that work well. Looking out for each other.

Not about everything. But well enough to fend off dangers. Especially blatant dangers, such as nuclear threats. (If China, Russia, Japan, S. Korea and the US agreed, and worked together on the issue, how much of a nuclear threat could N. Korea be?)

That degree of cooperation doesn't seem unreasonable to me, seeing where the world is, and how it has reacted to challenges in the last few months, but it would take better communication than we have, and some minimal, low level common ground about morality. Not so much, maybe. But enough of "the golden rule" so that the horrors of nuclear mass murder are made much less likely. Discouraged.

For the minimal, but efficient, level of decency needed we have to have some common facts, that people can agree on, have reason to agree on, and can use.

It seems to me that there are very great opportunities for journalism here.

There are a lot of things about the world that people might like to see changed, if they could work the transitions out - - step by step -- so that people, as they are, could make those transitions -- with enough confidence, and with sufficient cause for confidence.

People have to sort these things out for themselves, as they are, with situations as they are. They need facts , that they can trust, to do so. Deceptions, intentional or inadvertant, are very expensive indeed, and deny hope, when things are complicated.

And for things like missile defense, and other intractable problems,they are complicated.

Only the truth is a foundation for decision making on these key issues.

rshowalter - 03:02pm Aug 31, 2001 EST (#8266 of 8273)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

I'm reading a really good book that my brother gave me -- Gareth Morgan's IMAGES OF ORGANIZATION - - a good book to set beside Thomas Friedman's The Lexus and the Olive Tree . It talks about the MANY metaphors people use to think of human organization, especially

organizations as machines;

organizations as organisms;

organizations as brains;

organizations as cultures;

organizations as political systems;

organizations as psychic prisons;

organization as flux and transformation;

and

organizatins as instruments of domination.

Each of these "metaphors" "explains" much - - and each is partial and incomplete. Each biases as well as organizes. Reading the book, I was struck about how impossible it was to hope for people to agree, about many of the most basic things in their "explanatory systems."

All the same, people "in touch with reality" agree about facts that they have to act on together.

And human beings, and human groups, can interact in different ways -- some much better than others in terms of aesthetics and practical needs.

rshowalter - 03:02pm Aug 31, 2001 EST (#8267 of 8273)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Morgan cites an interesting box -- placing the words

competing .... avoiding ..... compromising .... collaborating ..... accomodating

on a box diagram -- with the vertical axis "Attempting to satisfy one's own concerns" ..... and the horizontal axis "attempting to satisfy other's concerns."

Here's the box.

rshowalter - 03:05pm Aug 31, 2001 EST (#8268 of 8273)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Vertical axis: "satisfying self"

Horizontal axis "satisfying other"

Competing ....................................Collaborating



......................Compromising ................



Avoiding .................................... Accomodating

rshowalter - 03:09pm Aug 31, 2001 EST (#8269 of 8273)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Competing is "total self assertion, all for me -- nothing for the other guy." . . . win-lose

avoiding is "no self assertion -- shut down the other guy" . . . . . lose-lose

compromising is "each side gets something, but less than they want." ..... . tie- tie

collaborating is "each side gets everything they really want, and work together." . . . win - win

We need more "win-win" situations, and fewer interactions of the other kinds, especially about vital human concerns - - like survival.

(4 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense