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?

rshowalter - 10:53am Oct 3, 2001 EST (#10054 of 10055)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Thinking about that. A couple things keep weighing on me, as I try to cycle through things -- little things, mostly. I'm trying to practice on what simpler cases might be like.

But I find myself worrying about some numbers, and some patterns, in the economy -- and since it is an easy thing to say, and off point enough that Armel is likely to dump it anyway, thought I'd mention them

Big thing: Every time, when facing a complex situation, you need a fairly complete model structurally (which means that the kinds of facts that matter have to be accounted for, and at least many of these facts in place, or well guessed) - - and then aesthetic responses, including ones we'd call moral, involving issuse like fairness, are indispensible.

Worry about those aesthetic responses takes extra time - but it is ugly and dangerous not to take the time.

. . . .

Another point, just in passing. Worrying a bit about the economy, and unforseen consequences -- both on government revenues, and market responses to short falls of plans, and bankrupcy laws. The rules in place aren't built for what is happening - and unless they are modified to suit it better, there will be bad effects that would otherwise be avoidable.

On revenue -- it seems to me that governments, US, Japanese, and other, ought to be able to, for a while anyway, assess a "variable" tax - somehow organized simply - so that all the government deficits that might happen otherwise don't have to happen --because I'm not sure the credit markets are ideally suited for what's happening, in the US, Japan, and elsewhere. Degenerate sequences that can be predicted and avoided should be.

Another point concerns bankrupcy laws - something I know something about. I went personally bankrupt (as a general partner) for 16.4 million bucks in the 80's -

(imho that was done to me by the CIA - when an offering by Oppenheimer & Co, almost ready to go, was sabotaged - I wasn't to be permitted to get rich until after solving my problem -- something I had NOT been told)

- the bankrupcy laws are NOT built to reasonably meet the needs of companies that are going insolvent in industries like airlines -- for a number of reasons -- especially the wiping out of equity that an operational system is going to have to depend on. Seems to me, people who can do honest bookeeping ought to take a look --- there ought to be better ways of preserving infrastructure than seem to be occurring - - and it is important that the fundamental income streams on which our stock markets depend not be under avoidable and unfair risk. - -

Just thoughts -- but some simple sequences I've looked at would go a lot better if some simple changes were made -- and politicians could make the changes honestly, quickly, and fairly, it seems to me. Good bankrupcy lawyers would have useful input - and some other folks, too.

Maybe I should delete this - but it is a fairly simple example where an unanticipated result may require, for efficiency and fairness - a change in rules, at least temporarily.

All in all, things look very good to me, but maybe I'm just being too optimistic.

If Armel doesn't wipe this in an hour or two - - I may - - these are just musings, and maybe premature.

When I was grilled by Casey, there was one admonition he kept pounding into me. Whatever you do, whenever you can --- preserve infrastructure -- human and organizational -- it is precious.

Seems good advice now.

Hope this stuff isn't too premature. I'm trying to work carefully.

Let me just post one thing more, and be back to blocking some stuff out. I'm hopeful, but a little harried.

Feel a lot safer than I did yesterday.

rshowalter - 11:49am Oct 3, 2001 EST (#10055 of 10055)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

There are plenty of opportunities if we preserve the human organizations we have, and make them work well as human needs.

If we take them apart, or undermine them, or let them degenerate, it is much harder.

If ever there was a time when business flying should go up it is now.

For lots of things, conversation, and the confidence building that comes from face to face contact, is indispensible. That's true when people have to arrange workable complex cooperation - - especially when anxieties are high.

I think some folks ought to look at the adjustments that people and organizations have made to the tragedy-crime of September 11 - -- a lot of them seem very wrong to me. With what is now known, the risk of recurrance of the hijack-murders ought to approach the vanishing point now -- with cheap countermeasures. And no one ought to advocate steps that basically undermine a reason people fly - - convenience.

Sorry, I know it is off point, and I think Armel, at his option, should probably delete them after he thinks they've been read.

But if you want cases where system dynamic response is miscalibrated, and contains sign errors, so that net adjusments are in the wrong direction - - here's an example.

Things like this need to be better designed, when a lot of human consequences depend on their function.

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense