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?

rshowalter - 03:05pm May 17, 2001 EST (#4051 of 4059)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

With respect to almarst's 4041: http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?7@174.mk62aV8Lo63^4038323@.f0ce57b/4331 ... people are only as smart as they are, only communicate as well as they do, and so things have to happen a step at a time, with steps that the real people involved as they are, and where they are, can actually do. 4011: rshowalter 5/16/01 8:41pm

The sociotechnical systems involved here are complex ( Kline's complexity indices in the trillions, with complexity indices greater than 4 not explicitly soluble now) and the amount of misinformation embedded in our defective feedback systems is large.

Steve Kline on complexity, and the complexity index: rshowalter 5/16/01 8:50pm

Putin and his staff have a BIG intellectual task before them, to put together a sociotechnical system that works - and they have to do it themselves, in interaction with the whole world.

In a similar way, the US has some challenges with military balances.

I have more to say, and I'm on it, but this is all I can do by 3:00 -- and it makes core points. People have to know much more than they often do know, about what human capacities ARE -- and how much work it is to get things set up so that they work.

When people are emotionally-intellectually paralyzed, as many of the former communist states have been, things can go disastrously badly -- and many things have.

When a lot of change is necessary it takes a lot of feedback -- and the information being fed back into the situation had better be understood, and better be true.

Quite often, these days, it isn't. War is partly about that. The economic debacles of the last decade in the former communist countries are partly about that.

I have to spend some more time, looking at feedback issues -- and the need for making things internally consistent and operationally true.

(more coming.)

rshowalter - 03:11pm May 17, 2001 EST (#4052 of 4059)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Truth is crucial for function, when things have to be changed. If nothing has to change, lies can accumulate -- and then people can be paralyzed when the need for change comes.
1133: rshowalter 3/17/01 6:13pm

" Here is the essence of the most effective psychological warfare - - you mess up a system, and can even shut it down, by telling lies."

rshowalter - 03:13pm May 17, 2001 EST (#4053 of 4059)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

more in a while -- issues of checking when people want to avoid checking are often crucial "show stoppers" that have to be adressed.

rshowalter - 03:20pm May 17, 2001 EST (#4054 of 4059)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

A major problem is that, for people to CHANGE their ideas, they have to be clear about

what they are changing from,

what they are changing to,

and why.

For this to be possible, things have to be clear enough to meet something close to the standards Dawn and I have talked about as "disciplined beauty." Those are the standards of clear statement, and emotional-aesthetic connection.

So that "hearts and minds" move together. As they must, if people are to be comfortable enough to actually act well on the basis of the ideas involved.

That takes a lot of thinking, a lot of discourse, some care in getting to clarity, and some time.

rshowalter - 03:21pm May 17, 2001 EST (#4055 of 4059)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

There are requirements for internal consistency ; a match to checkable facts ; and a sense that things are in good proportion.

(4 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense