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?

gisterme - 11:49pm Sep 9, 2001 EST (#8731 of 8742)

rswhoalter wrote ( rshowalter 9/9/01 7:56pm ): "...In terms of my assumptions, aesthetic judgements based on those assumptions, and emotions connected to the assumptions and aesthetic feelings, (it) feels right to me to say that..."

and

"...If I made other substitutions,..."

Robert, you might also consider substituting words like " prudent " or " responsible "; but, knowing you, I doubt that ever crossed your mind.

Of course, you have every right to believe what you want to believe. We all do. After all, what differentiates our society from the structures of enforced socialism, as they exist in China today and used to exist in the Soviet Union, is that we can also freely express our personal beliefs.

But what is the relationship of personal belief to reality? Is the relationship causal? I'll bet that (at least in your own mind) you'd strongly argue against causality when it comes to the beliefs of religious folks, who may present an identical basis for their faith as you've presented above for yours. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

From a strictly causal view, one might argue that the faith of the religious is based only on ancedotal evidence and "emotion"; yet, by your own statement above, you've concisely defined, as the foundation of your own equally fervent faith, an equally intangible basis. You've summed it up very nicely in the first paragraph above. I commend you for your honesty...for the first time I'm beginning to have a clue as to your motivation. This is the foundation of your faith... "...my assumptions, aesthetic judgements based on those assumptions, and emotions connected to the assumptions and aesthetic feelings, (it) feels right to me to say...". Hmmm. A lot of people feel the same way about Moses, Jesus and others.

I'll bet you've spent more time on this thread every week, at least since I've been noticing, than just about any clergyman spends preparing his weekly sermon. Certainly more time than the most devoted layman spends on his/her religious faith. Robert, this seems to be your religion. To each his own. I haven't noticed that God has appointed me anybody's judge. I do have to wonder though if you'd object if others tried as hard as you do to dominate a forum like this with their religious beliefs. You really do spend most of your effort talking about things not related to missile defense but rather related to demonizing the United States government, particularly people who haven't had any significant influence for decades. It's just an observation, Robert; but, give it some thought...that's the way it looks to me.

I also wonder if some of those other religous zelots honestly don't realize they're talking about religion... :-)

gisterme - 12:11am Sep 10, 2001 EST (#8732 of 8742)

wrcooper wrote( wrcooper 9/9/01 4:13pm ): "...Why is the Pentagon and its friends placing so much political capital in this flawed scheme? Who really believes that it will work?..."

I do WR, I'm certain that BMD will work and that your assumption that the idea is "flawed" is one that is entirely faith-based. There's far more evidence that BMD will work than that it won't. I was neutral on the topic when I first got involved with this thread but I've been inspired to study the topic in considerable depth. I'm now convinced that BMD is quite doable. We've been over that in detail several times on this thread. We could do it without any great technological leaps...just some re-integration of already exisisting stuff. With some additional incremental improvements to existing technology (not an unreasonable expectation) a successful limited BMD should be a slam-dunk. Bob has often and loudly responded to analytical presentation of physical facts (that I spent a good bit of time on at his request) with "it requires miracles". I'm beginning to realize that he's a man of faith. Facts are facts. Not believing will not change change the facts...and we're not moving backward in the technological capability department.

lunarchick - 12:49am Sep 10, 2001 EST (#8733 of 8742)
lunarchick@www.com

take time by the forelock.. King of New York

lunarchick - 01:05am Sep 10, 2001 EST (#8734 of 8742)
lunarchick@www.com

The NYT report re the Flushing Meadows match ommitted an important point, simply this:

The Aussie beat Sampras this time, last time and the time before when they met. This Aussie at age 14 also beat Agassi - which may have inspired that guy to shape-up again - which he did.

-------

WRT our spirituality Gisterm the story runs thus:

Tribal communities - where ever express spirituallity - via their environment in the rocks, the birds the shadows.

With the advent of the horse and travel - god was thrown skywards - thus accompanying a believer anywhere they went.

The Taliban ridded us of the 'mud' statues of yore because they weren't sky gods.

WRT Showalter and his dedication to MD reduction .. it might be viewed from the HEALTH AND SAFETY aspect - missles are neither safe nor healthy! The weekly literature seach noted that 10,000 missiles are 'launch ready' continuously ... Showalter has pointed out the statistical possibility that these might just 'fire' ... and indeed on the thread we have an example above of Russian operators seeing a missile coming at them (on their monitors), these guys had to determine whether to retaliate and start a massive nuclear war ... or ... to discount it as an error - this they did - overriding the system!

---------

(8 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense