New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

Nazi engineer and Disney space advisor Wernher Von Braun helped give us rocket science. Today, the legacy of military aeronautics has many manifestations from SDI to advanced ballistic missiles. Now there is a controversial push for a new missile defense system. What will be the role of missile defense in the new geopolitical climate and in the new scientific era?

rshowalter - 01:53pm Feb 9, 2001 EST (#664 of 667)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Lunarchick and I have worked out An operational definition of Good Theory in real sciences for real people. and it applies to good military doctrine (which is military theory, built to use.).

In "Beauty" http://www.everreader.com/beauty.htm Mark Anderson quotes Heisenberg's definition of beauty in the exact sciences:

"Beauty is the proper conformity of the parts to one another and to the whole."

SUGGESTED DEFINITION: Good military theory is an attempt to produce beauty in Heisenberg's sense in a SPECIFIC context of assumption and data.

Goodness can be judged in terms of that context, and also the fit with other contexts that, for logical reasons, have to fit together.

The beauty, and ugliness, of a theory can be judged, in terms of the context it was built for, and other contexts, including the context provided by data not previously considered.

Everything has to fit together (and, I think, be clearly describable in words, pictures, and quantitative descriptions, linked together comfortably and workably, both as far as internal consistency goes, and in terms of fit to what the military theory is supposed to apply to in action.

Military theories that are useful work comfortably in people's heads, so that they can guide real action..

Both the "beauty" and "ugliness" of military theory are INTERESTING. Both notions apply in the detailed context the military applies to.

Ugliness is an especially interesting notion. To make theory better, you have to look for ways that the theory is ugly, study these, and fix them.

The ugly parts are where new beauty is to be found.

I think the decisions and patterns described in the article today

"Bush Takes First Steps to Shrink Arsenal of Nuclear Warheads" by Steven Lee Myers

is as beautiful as it can possibly be, in context, for now, and is well adapted to identify ugliness, and find new and beautiful solutions to our military problems, which are so important to us all.

I'd add something, that everybody might know, that still is worth repeating:

To make good theory, in complex circumstances, beauty coming into focus must be judged, and shaped, in a priority ordering - and even though the priorities may be shifted for different attempts at beauty, the priorities need to be remembered, and questions of "what is beautiful" and "what ugly" have to be asked in terms of these priorities.

The management patterns described in Myers' article seem set up to permit that.

Lunarchick , I believe, would care especially about a related point:

Intellectual work, and scientific work, is an effort to find previously hidden beauty , and this is what moves people, and warms people. This need for beauty must be remembered, and not stripped away.

We need to find beautiful solutions to our military security, and the military balances of the world. There's ugliness enough around that there's room for new beauty, and new hope.

rshowalter - 01:56pm Feb 9, 2001 EST (#665 of 667)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Quote from Myers' article:

While Mr. Bush did not specify limits on the warheads in the shield, he pledged to seek "the lowest possible number consistent with our national security."

With care and hard work, I hope that minimum number can reach or approach zero. For that to happen, a lot of hard work will have to occur, and a lot of new, disciplined beauty will have to come into being.

dirac_10 - 12:01am Feb 11, 2001 EST (#666 of 667)

rshowalter - 12:39pm Feb 9, 2001 EST (#661 of 665)

Let me get this right... You think we shouldn't worry if some ruthless dicatators have nuclear etc. weapons and we don't because there is a chance they won't completely destroy us for sure. And we might be able to get revenge after being almost totally destroyed?

Riiiiight.

rshowalter - 04:41am Feb 11, 2001 EST (#667 of 667)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Never said that. I'm for effectively outlawing nuclear weapons. Ive got a lot of company there.

Colin Powell has said very similar things publicly. So have many, many other distinguished people.

The futility of first use of nuclear weapons, for anything but extermination of an enemy and all his allies, ought to be remembered. By everybody involved. And I think the point should be more discussed than it is, so that it is not forgotten.

If all military people knew this fact about nuclear weapons, the probablity of a small state, or political group, wanting to use them would shrink. If people were entirely logical (and I'm not claiming that they are) that probability would shrink to zero.

Here's an example, among many, of how ideas, clearly expressed, shift what may be discussed, and the solutions that may be found, if these ideas become widely accepted for good reasons.

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense