![[F]](../_images/site.gif) New York Times on the Web Forums  Science
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?
    (713 previous messages)
rshowalter
- 12:22pm Feb 19, 2001 EST (#714
of 717) 
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu
"The big picture." : How do our military arrangements
look, in terms of what our military is supposed to do for our
country, and for the world? rshowalter
2/9/01 1:53pm And in terms of the totality of United States
interests, and values, in the world?
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.
That goes for military practice, too.
rshowalter
- 12:26pm Feb 19, 2001 EST (#715
of 717)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu
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.
Priorities matter:
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.
If the priorities are wrong, the results are ugly in the
ways that matter. If the priorities are muddled, or nonsensical,
they are wrong.
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. Theres ugliness enough around
that theres room for new beauty, and new hope.
In yesterdays Getting
More Bang for the Armed Forces Buck ...... by Steven Lee Myers .....
The Nation .... WEEK IN REVIEW includes
this, in reverse order of occurrance:
"As Mr. Rumsfeld himself acknowledged, the present
military was built for the cold war, not the threats of tomorrow.
"
that makes it ugly.
The priorities set out in the piece were NOT in the national
interest.
"revolutionizing the armed forces would mean
defeating the nation's most determined foes of revolution: the
armed forces and their allies. Members of Congress will fight to
the death for weapons programs in their own districts, just as the
services will resist upsetting the delicate funding balance
between them."
that's ugly.
If you look at our nuclear arrangments, and the risks involved
with them, they are unbearably ugly.
The idea of a missile defense is a beautiful idea in its own
terms, but performance to date, and technical prospects, seem far
from beautiful, or even technically defensible.
rshowalter
- 12:29pm Feb 19, 2001 EST (#716
of 717)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu
On another thread, I've had some discussions with people who feel
that the US military should be radically downsized - a position I'm
not at all sure I agree with.
Those discussions mirror some reactions I had from a CIA
contact.
I made contact with this man, setting out the proposal for
nuclear but not conventional disarmament set out in #266, rshowalt
9/25/00 7:32am , giving the agency permission to monitor some
email accounts I shared with Dawn Riley, and offering other
cooperation.
After staff discussions, he got back to me. It was clear that a
major problem his staff colleagues had was to be sure that I was
proposing nuclear but not conventional disarmament. In
the discussion, it seemed that these staff colleagues did not
have a clear sense of what the US military establishment was in
existence for.
How about promoting the peace, comfort and safety of the
United States? In a world that is stable, and with our military
functioning in ways that make Americans proud, and other nations
respectful, according to American ideals?
For that, the military budget might be worth every penny. But
by that standard, there is thinking to do, and new beauty must be
found, where ugliness now exists.
That, in my view, is "the big picture" lunarchick
2/19/01 12:23am suggests we keep an eye on.
 
(1 following message)
  
 
New York Times on the Web Forums Science
Missile Defense
| 
