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 - 02:44pm Sep 25, 2001 EST (#9850 of 9856)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Armel, can I make links to things I've said before, or not?

I've made an effort to set this thread up something like an associative memory in brain -- and things I've written, quite often, were laid out with the intention that they be re-used.

On the issue of paradigm conflict, and checking, gisterme is asking to be informed of things I've explained before - - suggestions that I've made before - - and it seems to me much more economical than otherwise to cite those things.

rshowalter - 03:10pm Sep 25, 2001 EST (#9851 of 9856)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

While I'm hoping for a response from Armel , let me make an analogy from baseball. Something most people know something about, and that President Bush knows a lot about.

The question is -- how do you play pro ball without umpires?

I think the answer is that you couldn't possibly.

For reasons that are quite similar, when there are high stakes in other places, to get a decision that sticks, you need umpires.

And it is reasonable to ask to get facts established when a lot depends on them.

When I say, on this thread "this should be checked" what I really mean is

Checked to reasonable closure, by standards that can stand up to examination from many points of view.

You can't check everything -- or many things. But when the stakes are really high, and there is an impasse that hinges on a clear question of technical fact - - you need a way to determine it, and stakeholders can't be the judges.

rshowalter - 03:35pm Sep 25, 2001 EST (#9852 of 9856)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

For example, I've suggested setting up a sort of "engineer's court" for some key technical issues.

Wouldn't have to be very fancy. Would take a little money, though not much. With cooperation from some people of rank, I could find the money. So could some other people.

I suggested it might work like this.

I'd set out, or somebody else with technical objections would set out arguments. (Preferably somebody with a professional engineer's ticket.) Arguments with good illustrations, and everything professional quality enginering argument takes.

Somebody in favor of the program (preferably with a professional engineer's ticket) would contest, on the record, to similar standards.

Odds are good, with stakes this high, that there would be disagreements. Though, with the arguments in public, there might not be.

I'd suggest putting the arguments, pro and con, on the web for all to see.

Supppose, as I'd suppose, that there would be disagreements. I think very good umpires would be the people who write the Professional Engineering Exams for the subject matter involved.

You could get these people, in the US or equivalents elsewhere, to umpire the specific questions involved.

You'd get "islands of technical fact" that were common ground, checked to closure.

With those "islands of technical fact" established, I believe a great many problems would get solved, decently and pretty quickly.

Multibillion dollar errors, that connect to extremely dangerous decisions I think have to be incorrect, could be avoided.

(Or I could be shown wrong, along with a lot of other engineers and scientists who have reservations along with the program. )

Nobody would have to "believe" me or anybody else.

The key points could be checked.

rshowalter - 03:38pm Sep 25, 2001 EST (#9853 of 9856)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

So far as I can remember (I can get you cites), doing this checking, on the basis of what can be accomplished based on open literature data and practice could be done without violating security laws. That is, if I interpret what gisterme has said, in the course of some (salty but clear) exchanges.

armel7 - 03:57pm Sep 25, 2001 EST (#9854 of 9856)
Science/Health Forums Host

Yes, you can refer to what you've posted before, rshowalter, if it is a legitimate part of a current post, not just a repost.

Also, how about now you wait for gisterme to respond to your 6 new posts before you post any more.

Thanks,

Your host,
Michael Scott Armel

rshowalter - 04:18pm Sep 25, 2001 EST (#9855 of 9856)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Will do. Sorry to be a burden, and grateful for a chance to make my case.

mazza9 - 04:20pm Sep 25, 2001 EST (#9856 of 9856)
Louis Mazza

Scott:

A suggestion, how about we limit this forum to 15,000 posts. This would mean that "The Rshowalter Show" will be over before Thanksgiving. We can all give a hearty Thank God for your having limited this blowhard. I am surprised that your patience has held this long. The direction of this forum stopped being about the "scientific" aspects of missile defense as soon as he Rshowaltered up. I suppose this forum could be distilled down to a diplomatic tome on diplomacy in the cold War and post Cold War era.

Huh?

LouMazza

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense