New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

Technology has always found its greatest consumer in a nation's war and defense efforts. Since the last attempts at a "Star Wars" defense system, has technology changed considerably enough to make the latest Missile Defense initiatives more successful? Can such an application of science be successful? Is a militarized space inevitable, necessary or impossible?

Read Debates, a new Web-only feature culled from Readers' Opinions, published every Thursday.

rshow55 - 02:53pm Jun 19, 2002 EST (#2629 of 2635)

Sometimes there have to be groups in discussion together, for closure to be grammatically possible. The reason is that some maneuvers have to be constrained for closure to occur. Some of these maneuvers are ineffective if taken by people with names and reputations, in the presence of witnesses. Groups are important, so that it can be made clear, after the fact, what was actually said and done.

Congress Gets Bill Setting Up Security Dept. By DAVID FIRESTONE and ALISON MITCHELL http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/19/politics/19SECU.html contains a stunning image: http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2002/06/19/national/19secu.jpg

Senators Trent Lott and Tom Daschle, Representative Dick Armey, Tom Ridge and Representatives Richard A. Gephardt and J. Dennis Hastert, left to right, in a bipartisan show of support for the security department.

The facial expressions in this picture are well worth study. I find them beautiful Here are people resolved to get a situation straight - along a continuum of trust and distrust - - with checking, and with everyone responsible for what they say and do.

Such a group of people, in discussion together, mutually constrain each other in ways that can make closure on facts clear , or make disagreements clear.

If you have a system including "logical nodes" that are switching back and forth - you can't get closure. In groups, especially when there is a good deal of mutual information, mutual distrust, and competence - such evasions can be stabilized into the form of checkable answers.

I'm trying to get some things checked about my background - because if they are, I believe that a great many things can be sorted out, in my interest, in the national interest, in the interest of the University of Wisconsin, and in the interest of the decency and safety of mankind. The image above is real, but in a sense, it might be thought of as a "miracle." What I could do with such a miracle, or even a much lesser miracle!

Here's an example or a pattern of such "miracles", one of many such patterns.

Suppose that Captain Dale Burke, head of the University of Wisconsin's police force, agreed to go with me and participate and monitor my discussions with others, for the purspose of getting some issues about my background straight. Two of his officers, Grimyster and Driscoll, might accompany us. We could meet with any or all of the following people:

Sharon Dunwoody, Dean, Professor of Journalism, and effective minister of information for the University of Wisconsin

Any member of the editorial board of The Capital Times.

Frederick Mohs, attorney, formerly a close friend and investor of mine, and Regent of the University of Wisconin

John Petersen III, formerly a close friend and investor of mine, close associate of Mohs', and head of the State of Wisconsin board of investments.

Someone in Senator Feingold's Middleton, Wisconsin office.

Any representative of the U.S. government, or representative of a trusted journalistic organization.

Issues that might never be expected to close, if I tried to see these people alone, might close definitely, and in a way that would be in the interest of all people in good faith, if I had Captain Burke with me. It would be perfectly fair, even expected, for Burke to try to put me in jail if there was a sensible reason to. That fact would be my protection - so long as I was acting reasonably, and telling the truth.

Impossible? Miraculous? Outrageous? By some standards, you can argue, "yes." But if I could get that help (or help from some other competent, informed person) -- a lot that could never close otherwise might be able to move toward resolution in a reasonable way that "the average reader of The New York Times" would be likely to approve of.

If for "Captain Burke" you substitute the name of one of a

rshow55 - 03:55pm Jun 19, 2002 EST (#2630 of 2635)

If for "Captain Burke" you substitute the name of one of a number of NYT people, similar steps toward closure could also be taken. Taken in meetings in Madison Wisconsin, in Washington D.C., in New York City, or elsewhere.

For reasons of the grammar of discourse, there are tasks that individuals cannot possibly do in the face of opposition, that groups can do easily, and honorably. I'm facing a few such tasks. If I can some help on getting those tasks done, I think the world can be made safer and more comfortable - at little cost.

Whether you "call me Ishmael" or not -- there is a lesson here, about what closure takes - that I believe needs to be learned. Especially with respect to military issues on which the survival of us all depends.

It seemed to me that the work on this thread prior to MD2000 rshow55 5/4/02 10:39am was useful, and I sometimes suspect that some work since is being useful as well.

rshow55 - 06:38pm Jun 19, 2002 EST (#2631 of 2635)

MD2621 rshow55 6/19/02 7:41am includes this:

I'm thinking that a very few simple things, not embarrassing, not expensive, not difficult, would be good to do now. If some journalists could hear some recordings -- one from last week, between me and the C.I.A. - which NYT could get to if it wished -- and another that I'm guessing exists of a meeting between me and a trusted officer of the University of Wisconsin, Madison - - that could set things up for some graceful, simple steps.

(4 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense