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?

Read Debates, a new Web-only feature culled from Readers' Opinions, published every Thursday.

lchic - 07:54am Feb 9, 2002 EST (#11389 of 11397)

Against the gods

contents

rshow55 - 07:59am Feb 9, 2002 EST (#11390 of 11397)

I'm posting off topic, for the topic that exists just now. But not for the topics that were in place for most of the existence of this thread. MD10759 rshow55 1/14/02 1:48pm

I believe that these matters are relavent, in fact crucial, for better action on missile defense. The work is also quite close to a briefing I gave, on this thread, to "almarst" -- our "Putin stand-in" described with many links in
MD7389 rshowalter 7/24/01 7:18pm and MD7390 rshowalter 7/24/01 7:20pm

Russia is in better shape than it was last March, when Muddle in Moscow was printed in the Economist http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=533129

Perhaps there is some Muddle in Washington that might be subject to improvement, using similar logic. I'm going to argue that case -- with the additional notion of a "qued bill of action" . . . and think it is reasonable posting on this thread.

rshow55 - 09:02am Feb 9, 2002 EST (#11391 of 11397)

I set out information about economic efficiency that I felt Putin, or any decision maker, ought to know, in terms of simple estimates of "expected rates of return" :

MD1394 rshowalter 3/23/01 5:30pm ... MD1395 rshowalter 3/23/01 5:36pm
MD1396 rshowalter 3/23/01 5:38pm ... MD1397 rshowalter 3/23/01 5:41pm
MD1398 rshowalter 3/23/01 5:43pm ... MD1399 rshowalter 3/23/01 5:51pm
MD1400 rshowalter 3/23/01 5:53pm ... . and, for emphasis, ... MD 1401 rshowalter 3/23/01 5:56pm

DOD might make better decisions if they thought of options in terms of "expected rates of return."

When you do, it becomes clear that certain things are very worthwhile - - - and this applies especially to the work involved in getting right answers on key questions of fact.

And certain things are clearly not worth doing. Some missile defense programs are among the things clearly not worth doing. Even though missile defense is indeed an important objective.

If you list things that could be done, in order of "expected rate of return" -- it makes sense to pick the best bets -- and it makes no sense at all to invest in the sucker bets - where rate of return is less than 0 -- the losers.

There is a theory of queues - a theory of "individuals lining up for service". Part of the theory of stochastic (statistical) processes. You need an ordering, for which individuals to "invest in". Expected rate of return is a good one for a "queued bill of action." -- a "to-do list, ordered by what is worth doing."

lchic - 09:05am Feb 9, 2002 EST (#11392 of 11397)

One takes it that more factors enter in, other than mere technical and economic consideration ?

rshow55 - 09:27am Feb 9, 2002 EST (#11393 of 11397)

Yes -- but one can, in a sense that is not dehumanizing, ask the question "what is this worth, if you have to put a number on it? - - and also -- can this be done at all?

And the economic and technical are human, too.

Morality connects to "mere technical and economic consideration" as well. If you misstate payoffs, or costs, or risks, or time horizons -- those are consequential mistakes -- and if those mistakes are intentional, they are fraud -- something the Enron situation is making increasingly clear to a wide public.

A very "technical" idea is humanizing, too. It is the idea of constraints. Statements of things that can't be done (or sometimes, things that are prohibitively expensive to do.) Two very important bodies of constraint depend on the fact that people are human beings.

People have basic needs -- and Maslow's list says some useful things about those needs. A "solution" that is inconsistent with human needs, at the basic level Maslow describes is not only ugly -- but in a deep sense, impractical.

And human beings live in groups, and groups that are subject to basic laws of power. Berle's laws of power seem to apply universally -- and a "solution" that is inconsistent with the facts of power relationships is also no solution. It is unworkable and ugly in human terms.

If you have constraints, it is important to know them. And simplifying!

rshow55 - 09:33am Feb 9, 2002 EST (#11394 of 11397)

To get out of technical messes that real people have gotten into - - you have to remember the human, and not only the technical, constraints.

(3 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense