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 - 09:14am Jun 15, 2001 EST (#5180 of 5187)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

if "scale down" means -- lower the level of formal rank of the parties involved -- that might be very good -- in fact -- on this thread a "dry run" has been proposed which might be called "the ultimate scale down" in terms of rank.

But in terms of word count , hard thought, and the amount of human contact and checking to be expended, efforts need to be increased .... and increased very much.

AFTER much more of a focused, fully worked out situation in terms of facts and arguments was in place "higher rank" negotiations would work better.

The "scaled back" (rankwise" but "scaled up" hour-wise contact might come to convergence fairly quickly -- given how much clarity already exists in statements from "stand-ins" on this thread.

Perhaps the leaders can't reasonably agree -- or even reasonably communcate -- unless a body of common knowledge exists in the staffs and socio-technical systems that they stand in front of -- but cannot fully understand or control.

This thread, I believe, makes it clear that there are massive differences of opinion and definition -- and deep, dangerous chasms of incomprehension and lack of sympathy, between the US and Russia -- and that adressing these would be useful.

____

If, on the other hand, the administration is saying - -

" let's do it in the background -- according to the same techniques that have served us so badly, and been so treacherous in the past."

that makes no sense to me.

rshowalter - 09:18am Jun 15, 2001 EST (#5181 of 5187)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

For human communication to be reliable - as human animals inescapably are --- word count, crosschecking and crossreferencing have to be extensive -- so that common schema are formed, and "meetings of the minds" are humanly possible.

In the short, stereotyped, and high pressure meetings between national leaders there is no time for this.

This thread, I believe, shows many of the patterns that would make improved communication possible -- using the much increased memory, and ability to tolerate complexity -- that the internet provides.

rshowalter - 09:20am Jun 15, 2001 EST (#5182 of 5187)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Whatever else one may wish to say, Putin and Bush have very different world views -- and so do their staffs.

In a few hours of contact between principles and staffs, this isn't going to be bridged.

Without techniques of mutual checking that both sides can trust it isn't going to be bridged.

rshowalter - 09:25am Jun 15, 2001 EST (#5183 of 5187)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Point of hope: MD5070 rshowalter 6/14/01 6:59am

to get from current stresses to that hope -- ways have to be found to deal with the complex, sometime ugly things that are -- that they may be dealt with, and changed for the better.

rshowalter - 09:33am Jun 15, 2001 EST (#5184 of 5187)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

MD5071 rshowalter 6/14/01 7:35am ... reads in part:

"Some points my old partner, Professor Stephen J. Kline of Stanford, made about scientific contro versy, specifically linked to the somewhat out-of-the-way field of fluid mechanics, offer, I think, nice analogies - removed enough from the passions of most readers, to be useful in considering the mess the world is now in about nuclear terror and related military issues. . . . . . "there are also misunderstandings along a spectrum from entirely innocent to entirely self serving. " . . . " You need to have enough command of details, and enough ability to establish facts before witnesses, to be able to establish these differences. "

. . .

" We need to hold clearly in mind the Guideline for Scholarly Controversy. The human mind is a wonderful associative engine, but a weak logical engine. As a result we all tend to emphasize the data we have taken and know well. For example, my own group overemphasized for a time the role of sublayer streaks and ejections. We need to keep asking ourselves two questions: (i) What are the credible data from ALL sources? (ii) How can we formulate a model or solution that is consistent with all the credible data?

I feel these two key questions (i) and (2) bear repeating when right answers matter. On issues of nuclear balances and war and peace, both as they concern the future and as they concern a necessary understanding of the past, these ideas seem especially important.

(3 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense