New York Times on the Web Forums Science
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?
(7993 previous messages)
- 09:46am Aug 22, 2001 EST (#7994
"Russian military leaders have expressed concern about US plans
for a national missile defense system"
Land based, perhaps, but I doubt that a sea-based system would
bother them, at all - especially if they wanted to be included from
- 09:53am Aug 22, 2001 EST (#7995
It is absolutely absurd about how the United States is going
about VIOLATING (not withdrawing as they diplomatically like to say)
the ABM Treaty. It clearly shows Unites States arrogance and lack of
courtesy to his allies. Doesn't anybody worry about the fact that
the whole world is against this, even US allies? There must be
something seriously wrong here... I sincerely hope that Russia
doesn't give in... but I'm sure that somehow US will find a way to
get their cooperation. After all Russia cannot afford to turn down
any last minute 'gifts'.
- 09:56am Aug 22, 2001 EST (#7996
U.S. Envoy in Talks
MOSCOW (Reuters) — A senior U.S. envoy held arms consultations in
Moscow on Tuesday but both sides were keeping expectations muted,
awaiting the results of a Pentagon review that is to allow
Washington to put firm numbers on the table for arms cuts.
Undersecretary of State John Bolton met Russian arms negotiator
Georgy Mamedov, a deputy foreign minister. Bolton is the third
senior U.S. security official to visit Russia since presidents
George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin agreed at a summit in Italy last
month to hold new consultations. www.themoscowtimes.com
- 09:58am Aug 22, 2001 EST (#7997
"Innovation is too far down the line"
But, not to see where it is going. The last few posts have talked
about a sunk sub and a little germ warfare.
The bold face print hints at the "worst".
How do you define innovation?
- 10:02am Aug 22, 2001 EST (#7998
"Whilst" is an interesting word to use while quoting the Moscow
Let me guess. Britain wants in, too.
- 10:05am Aug 22, 2001 EST (#7999
I simply cannot contain my anger and my dismay at this latest
news from our Administration. This policy is misguided and blind,
blind to the danger it put us all in, meaning the world. This
bullying and self-serving behavior on our part, coupled with absurd
rationalizations with regard to how Russia should behave (trying to
pin the responsibility for failure of diplomacy on them) is more of
the same double-speak for which our nation has become renowned!
I see the time for protest of this misguided policy upon us now!
The world is already dangerous enough without a less than
intelligent President and his equally dangerous, and evil, minions,
messing up the Peace for all of us.
- 10:19am Aug 22, 2001 EST (#8000
8/22/01 9:44am .. is great stuff !
Getting things to fit in different people's heads --
getting things to work from different contexts - the
exposition has to have some diversity, too. Even if perfection is
attainable for a specific context, there are many contexts, and the
need for different patterns of exposition, different correllations
with argument and evidence, at different levels of detail.
At many stages, getting things checked matters -- because errors
can propogate. These are common problems, that human organizations
handle, in various ways, all the time.
The exposition job is a hard one. The problem of getting
credibility is a hard one. The problems involved with proceeding
with grace and fairness is a hard one. The problem of touching, not
just minds, but the emotions that necessarily connect to
consequential action is a hard one.
But with the internet, and its greatly expanded memory and
tolerance for complexity -- and with the accumulation of expository
power in organizations like the TIMES - more is possible than used
The analogies to litigation of technical matters are pretty
close. Procedures that work for "discovery" are fairly close to many
informally used on this thread. Procedures that work for TRIAL --
where "laymen" have to make judgements, and results have to be clear
at many levels -- are different -- and not yet done.
But there's hope of getting FACTS, on which so much depends,
clarified here -- and doing it in ways that work for a very wide
range of people, from a very wide range of different perspectives.
How we FEEL about facts may be very different. But some technical
issues -- once subject to examination, by fair rules, with fair
umpiring when needed -- aren't subject to substantial question.
Sometimes pictures really ARE worth a thousand words.
7/6/01 1:38pm shows some beautiful pictures from the Hubble
Dec-97- Hubble Butterfly http://www.astrophys.org/high_2001.html
With these pictures, one can get a feel for what
"resolution" means. And get a sense of how wonderful the resolution
of Hubble is.
But it isn't nearly good enough to make lasar space weapons
Combining facts, connected solidly to evidence, to arguments that
can be understood in context, points can be made clear.
For a number of reasons, involving issues like resolution --
issues of numbers and in details -- the overwhelming mass of what
the Bush administration wants to fund for Star Wars isn't workable.
It will take work to show that - - and may take some force,
formal or informal, to get key parties involved. But getting clarity
on key points, "beyond a reasonable doubt" - - and in ways all can
see -- is something that can be done.
New York Times on the Web Forums Science