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 - 11:55am Sep 24, 2001 EST (#9833 of 9838)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

The idea of going after the terrorists' financial resources is a good one. The exercise of figuring out how to do so, and doing so, will provide a good deal of information that might also be useful for other things.

The exercise of asking "how can we get at the terrorists with absolutely minimal violence" may teach a lot. The exercise doesn't rule out other alternatives.

We ought to consider neutralizing the terrorists in terms of the full heirarchy of needs that they have, that their supporters have, that we have, and that our supporters have.

MD6619 rshowalter 7/5/01 12:11am

http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/regsys/maslow.html Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs by William G. Huitt

It also makes sense, I think, to consider what can be done, and done consistently, within the rules of Berle's Laws of Power
MD948 rshowalter 3/12/01 10:02am ... MD1066 rshowalter 3/16/01 5:36am

Too complex? With enough considerations considered, and unsatisfactory approaches ruled out, workable and efficient solutions may stand out alone, or nearly alone.

rshowalter - 11:57am Sep 24, 2001 EST (#9834 of 9838)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

MD6609 lunarchick 7/4/01 11:35pm

Declaration of Independence

' ... unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness ...'

" To the man who only has a hammer in the toolkit, every problem looks like a nail." - Abraham Maslow http://www.quoteland.com/qldb/topic/165

For creative solutions: 'When I examine myself and my methods of thought, I come to the conclusion that the gift of fantasy has meant more to me than my talent for absorbing positive knowledge.' Albert Einstein http://www.waverly.net/redwards/quotations.html

rshowalter - 12:05pm Sep 24, 2001 EST (#9835 of 9838)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

MASLOW'S HEIRARCHY OF NEEDS:

1) Physiological: hunger, thirst, bodily comforts, etc.;

2) Safety/security: out of danger;

3) Belonginess and Love: affiliate with others, be accepted; and

4) Esteem: to achieve, be competent, gain approval and recognition.

5) Cognitive: to know, to understand, and explore;

6) Aesthetic: symmetry, order, and beauty;

7) Self-actualization: to find self-fulfillment and realize one's potential; and

8) Transcendence: to help others find self-fulfillment and realize their potential.

In a complex enough situation, in a real sociotechnical system, needs at every one of these levels has to be reasonably satisfied if a workable solution is to be found to any other.

That limits what can be done -- but within those limits, what can be done may fit human needs.

The needs here can only be filled, in the real world, if they are adressed in ways that fit the real world as it is.

With the interdependencies that it has.

For a lot of things, there are no "unilateral" solutions.

rshowalter - 12:07pm Sep 24, 2001 EST (#9836 of 9838)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Given these complexities, lies or mistakes can be prohibitively dangerous or expensive.

Under such conditions, checking needs to be morally forcing for essential reasons.

In this missile defense thread, the avoidance of checking has been notable. As the avoidance of checking is notable elsewhere.

That avoidance converts problems that human beings could solve to hopeless, insoluble, ugly messes.

rshowalter - 12:12pm Sep 24, 2001 EST (#9837 of 9838)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

If interdependencies are real, and in real sociotechnical systems they usually are, to satisfy one's own needs, including one's need for safety, one has to consider the other guy's needs as well.

In matters of nuclear balances, military balances, and missile defense, that simplifies the logic a great deal, by ruling out a great deal of nonsense.

Because neither the US, nor any other country, has any workable way of making itself invulnerable to attack or injury. There are too many ways that attack or injury can happen, especially if one is not part of a community.

There are workable solutions, and when the real constraints are considered, they stand out.

. . . . .

The connection between simple security, and meeting human needs around the world, stands out too.

rshowalter - 12:13pm Sep 24, 2001 EST (#9838 of 9838)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

So does the plain need for military competence on the part of nation states. And the need for it to be workably balanced.

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense