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?

guy_catelli - 01:36pm Jan 17, 2002 EST (#10841 of 10848)
the trick of Mensa

Enron tried to enter sex-video-on-demand business: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/17/business/17BAND.html

lchic - 01:54pm Jan 17, 2002 EST (#10842 of 10848)

Meaning?

That powerhouse knew they were in trouble ..

Were the cosy support systems pulled from under MD then reality would hit home sooner.

rshow55 - 02:26pm Jan 17, 2002 EST (#10843 of 10848)

But there's a difference. Enron was in trouble -- but it wasn't serving an essential social purpose.

The military-industrial complex has more importance than that.

There are problems in the MD projects (and other things the military is involved with) and they need to be fixed. But the infrastructure does not need to be destroyed. Or even much embarrassed. It should be redeployed to do things that are in the national interest.

Nuclear weapons, these days, aren't in the national interest. (At least at anything like current numbers.) Ways of "controlling" weapons of mass destruction that cannot possibly work aren't in the national interest, either.

We need effective protection from nuclear risks of all sorts.

And the precious, important national resources in our major contracting firms should be set to doing jobs that can actually be done --- in the national interest.

I've been much concerned with an example. A problem at the interface between physical modelling, and abstract math (including computer math) -- a link between the concrete world, and the abstract world - wasn't rightly dealt with, when it "logically" should have been -- about 350 years ago. The problem should be fixed, and fixed gracefully.

The point isn't to punish anybody for something that nobody can reasonably be blamed for -- but it makes sense to fix the problems that happen to be there, get some things straight -- and take advantage of the real, new opportunties that are there. Not just let the thing fall at random, and be a disaster.

Infrastructure needs to be preserved. - - With reasonable government and management decisions, that can happen best when people are making decisions on the basis of information that is true, and in reasonable proportion to circumstances as they are.

My old partner, Professor Steve Kline, of Stanford, was involved in a very good example, where the US Air Force, and NSF, made some transitions effectively and gracefully. We need that sort of thing now.

rshow55 - 02:40pm Jan 17, 2002 EST (#10844 of 10848)

Kline wrote me this letter (I have a copy on Stanford letterhead, too) before he died. I'm proud of it. Steve says things about probems with modelling that I believe are absolutely true, and important to understand when considering missile defense, and the possibilities of systematic errors in MD systems. http://www.wisc.edu/rshowalt/klinerec .

I spoke at Steve's Memorial service at Stanford Chapel, in 1997. This is what I said. Some things about what Steve did (where the Air Force and NSF were creatively involved) are mentioned. http://www.wisc.edu/rshowalt/klineul

Steve and I wrote this paper, in April 1997, and it is right and clear, though a bit informal, and overcolored. http://www.wisc.edu/rshowalt Something about my background, and Steve's, is at the end.

An error in finite increment algorithms is illustrated, with a biologically and technically important example, in http://www.wisc.edu/rshowalt/kirch1

I believe that there are corresponding errors in programs involved in missile defense, guidance generally, and elsewhere.

Am I fallible? Sure. So are other people.

. . .

I've been trying to get this stuff "into the system" - - and trying to do so in ways that can "preserve infrastructure".

guy_catelli - 03:26pm Jan 17, 2002 EST (#10845 of 10848)
the trick of Mensa

to be sure i understand where you are coming from: is there any missile defense system you would enthusiastically support? (if so, i would withdraw all of my prior aspersions.)

rshow55 - 03:28pm Jan 17, 2002 EST (#10846 of 10848)

Some summaries of my background, that may perhaps interest some. One may call these "stories."

MD6057 rshowalter 6/26/01 6:22am . . . MD6370 rshowalter 7/1/01 6:19am
MD6371 rshowalter 7/1/01 6:19am

...

MD6397 rshowalter 7/2/01 7:00am ... MD6398 rshowalter 7/2/01 7:00am
MD6399 rshowalter 7/2/01 7:02am ... MD6400 rshowalter 7/2/01 7:02am
MD6401 rshowalter 7/2/01 7:04am

. . .

MD7385 rshowalter 7/24/01 7:13pm ... MD7386 rshowalter 7/24/01 7:14pm
MD7388 rshowalter 7/24/01 7:17pm ... MD7389 rshowalter 7/24/01 7:18pm
MD7390 rshowalter 7/24/01 7:20pm ...

Have I been disloyal to the United States of America? Or failed to keep promises I gave, to the best of my ability, under difficult circumstances? I don't think so.

(2 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense