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?

almarst-2001 - 10:35pm Mar 15, 2001 EST (#1061 of 1066)

Robert,

Your discussion on Paradigm is indeed very importand one. Unfortunatly, it may be very hard to break the established Paradigm and make a shift for at least those reasons:

- Resistance from the existing Paradigm "establishement" who may lose thir position, importance, reputation and material benefits. Being at the top, they are in an excelent position to discredit and sabotage any effort to change the status-quo. Unless they are idealistic and altruistic enough to accept the truth.

- Resitance or indifference from the outsiders who either do not posess a critical mind and blindly accept the established axiom, or those who just don't care. Unless they are convinced the change may be directly beneficial for them. Convinced either by other (higher) authority or the pure necessity.

So, the way to shift the paradigm may be done in two directions - convincing the idealistic and altruistic insiders on their field and terms and finding authorithy interested to promote the case.

Just today, while listening to PBS on Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I was surprised to hear the new idea which may eventually be a solution:

Create a common Israeli-Palestinian state modeled on a basis of Swiss cantons. That would mean dropping of an idea of a pure Jewish state. But I believe Jews may accept it if they will fill secure. The main reason the Israel was established was to provide jews with secure homeland.

I lived in Israel for 14 years after immigrating from USSR, and as I remember, this option was never even discussed.

lunarchick - 11:55pm Mar 15, 2001 EST (#1062 of 1066)
lunarchick@www.com

Looking at Paradigm shift, the question has to be put ... "If people are stuck in a rut, why don't they get out of it?"

In the MD area the people who can lift others out of it have to be the political VISION strategists.

Look at competing interests for funding in any nation ... MD should be at the bottom not the top of their lists. Then what should be at the top. What are the 'other' competing areas that spending could go to ... all and any of which would do more good that towards the white-elephants of MD.

lunarchick - 12:02am Mar 16, 2001 EST (#1063 of 1066)
lunarchick@www.com

http://endeavor.med.nyu.edu/lit-med/lit-med-db/webdocs/poems/pathology.of.colours.da.html

lunarchick - 04:22am Mar 16, 2001 EST (#1064 of 1066)
lunarchick@www.com

On strategic vision the questions that should be being asked are:

"What would be an ideal for each party in 5, 10, 20 years?"

Perhaps the 'desired' might be written up as a type of world insurance policy. There's an art in the development of such policies that in turn become a registered product with international standing. What premiums would we have to pay to guarantee world peace. Statistically (above) there are grave chances of missiles firing. Would insurances assessors calculate this risk and be prepared to pay out on vast land masses that become unusable for the next x-hundred thousand years?

If there was a calculation to give a publicised commercial reality, then the matter might be given a high and immediate priority.

rshowalter - 05:32am Mar 16, 2001 EST (#1065 of 1066)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

That's a very good idea. And an idea that ought to appeal to many people. The notion of "insurance people for the abolition of nuclear weapons" makes sense -- and stays away from difficult ideological issues. The idea of "abolition of nucler weapons for people with imagination and sense enough to buy insurance" makes sense, as well.

(1 following message)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense