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?

gisterme - 04:46pm Jun 28, 2001 EST (#6237 of 6242)

rshowalter wrote: "...But for all the nay-saying, there are a lot of exciting things, intellectually, going on all over the world -- and opportunities are very great. There are centers of culture, such as Stanford University - that are probably as impressive collections of human intellect and achievement as have ever existed, anywhere. (Always, of course, with a lot of folly too -- because we live with human institutions.)..."

Couldn't agree more, Robert. Also, some of the links that lunarchick posted about problem solving and creativity suggest some processes that might be applied here. Collectively they say, in effect, that a problem is not a problem until it is perceived and that a problem can't be solved until it is understood.

:-) I suppose that's why men and women have so many problems with each other. Lots of perception but very little understanding...Venus and Mars are SO far apart.

You've proposed "umpired" negotiation. Unfortunately, there's nobody on this thread that seems impartial enough to serve as an umpire. The other problem with that is that an umpire with the power of arbitration would probably not be acceptable to anybody in the absence of a clear set of rules. Try to imagine what purpose an umpire would serve in a sport that had no rules...

Why not pick one of those problem solving processes lunarchick posted as a baseline and then try to work through it step-by-step?

You've worked very hard, certainly harder than anybody else by volume, to keep this thread going, but somtimes without much focus. That's not a criticism, but rather acknowledgement that the task is impossible given the lack of structure. If you think you could (probably by great effort) remain impartial I'd be willing to try an experiment:

1) Together Outline a set of milestones, based on the general steps of a problem solving process. For example:

a. Identify the problem to be solved b. Identify/list possible solutions c. Discuss possible solutions in depth, one-by-one and discard impractical possibilities (umpire arbitration) d. Focus on what's left (should result in VERY topical discussion by this point) to try to resolve the VERY BEST solution(s).

...something like that, to use as a "set of rules" that might make an umpire useful.

2) Work only on one step at a time...until the impartial umpire judges that the corresponding milestone has been reached. Then on to the next...

I'd be willing to let you be umpire within an established framework of rules, but NOT censor. The hard part for you would be to be the tickler to keep the process going while remaining impartial. Think you could do it? I confess to skepticism but maybe by some trial and error we could find a process that could work. I'm willing to try that. What we've been doing here on this thread has been useful as far as getting to understand each other goes but not so where it comes to reaching agreeable conclusions. Even though I may disagree with the views of other "regulars" here on this thread I have sincere respect for them all.

Give it some thought, Robert. How can we know what might work if we don't try something? I'm sure that we'd have a clue about being on the right track or not just by trying step one.

...gotta go for now, probably back later.

possumdag - 04:50pm Jun 28, 2001 EST (#6238 of 6242)
Possumdag@excite.com

Thread: money & scarcity:

People value:

"With the emergence of the information age, the strength of a country is based on knowledge. National greatness will arise not from our natural resources or our factories, but from our people, people with ideas and skills. Firms that understand this change have a chance of succeeding, and those that don't will fail and cease to exist."

rshowalter - 04:53pm Jun 28, 2001 EST (#6239 of 6242)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

gisterme-- great comment.

Have an appointment. Back in an hour.

possumdag - 04:53pm Jun 28, 2001 EST (#6240 of 6242)
Possumdag@excite.com

GI: answer this question

Which came first the chicken or the egg ?

then substitute

Which came first 'the game' or the 'umpire' ?

possumdag - 05:00pm Jun 28, 2001 EST (#6241 of 6242)
Possumdag@excite.com

A game is a closed senario, with rules, that can be umpired and adjudicated.

If Missiles are 'A Game', a macarbe political strategic game, then let's assume there's an umpire and that the game will come to a close ... not in the nuclear winter sense.

-----

Showalter said the 'game' is a dangerous game, in that the missiles are statistically unstable. Were one to 'blow' then the rule of the game is 'retaliation' .. for every oncoming missile - directed and intended or a 'rogue' .. there is a'rookie' trained to respond with an onslaught.

A function of this thread seems to have been, for all to have started with their 'entry to thread mindset' and to go on to look at problems in a cognitive manner .. to develop wiser mindsets.

Most NYT punters take one look at the ugly words 'missile defence' and move on to a more appealing more beautifully titled thread!

rshowalter - 05:44pm Jun 28, 2001 EST (#6242 of 6242)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

gisterme asked a fundamental question well -- here's a situation where umpires are necessary -- and Dawn, neither you nor I qualify as "umpires."

Not umpires to say "what's fair" -- those preferences aren't delegable. Decision maker have to cut the deals themselves.

But, for stakes like this, key issues of fact should be capable of being locked down - in a way that everybody involved will see as solid.

I'll try to come up with a good answer for gisterme's fundamental question within less than an hour.

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense