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 - 07:01am Sep 30, 2001 EST (#9981 of 9992)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

We need to think. And have some ideas of the limitations of what our minds can do, and the times when we have to check our beliefs, and the beliefs of others - - against what can be verified about the real world.

We need to do possible things, because it can be so expensive and dangerous not to.

It is dangerous enough, now, that we should think, and be careful.

Concepts

http://www.cogsci.uni-osnabrueck.de/lectures/foundations/FoCS2/sld006.htm http://www.cogsci.uni-osnabrueck.de/lectures/foundations/FoCS2/index.htm

visualisations of 'love' not 'war' here perhaps ? http://www.cogsci.uni-osnabrueck.de/lectures/foundations/FoCS2/sld034.htm

kangdawei - 07:58am Sep 30, 2001 EST (#9982 of 9992)

Robert alternates between links to his own posts (Robert is nothing if not zealously self-referential) and words of psuedo-caution and quasi-wisdom. Gotta be careful, slowdown, move real slow.

Right, gotya Robert.

Still no answer to the basic question: which military high-tech enterprise would you boost at the expense of NMD?

Not a one. Thought so.

You accept the "moral equivalence" doctrine that all countries are equally immoral and all should be equally constrained.

Right. Gotya. Thought so.

rshowalter - 08:02am Sep 30, 2001 EST (#9983 of 9992)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Information handling -- I gave enough information on that that your people should have known what to do. You'd keep plenty of people busy. Doing workable things.

rshowalter - 08:02am Sep 30, 2001 EST (#9984 of 9992)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

We Love the Liberties They Hate by MAUREEN DOWD http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/30/opinion/30DOWD.html

" . . . . So I don't need instructions from Ari Fleischer, the White House press secretary, on the conduct of a good American. Patriotism, it seems, is the last refuge of spinners.

" Even as the White House preaches tolerance toward Muslims and Sikhs, it is practicing intolerance, signaling that anyone who challenges the leaders of an embattled America is cynical, political and — isn't this the subtext? — unpatriotic.

. . . .

"The White House is wrapping the flag around a little too snugly, as the senior Bush did in the 1988 campaign when he appeared at a flag factory and talked about being "on the American side."

"At a time when Americans are willing to vest extraordinary power in the president, to trust him with life-and- death decisions, to give him him considerable leeway in curbing civil liberties and spending billions, this is a time when questions and debate are what patriotism demands. Even the most high-minded government is not infallible.

Americans need to be WORTHY of the GOOD THINGS people associate with this flag - - not just wave it. . . . Our allies, and people all over the world, should be able to expect that. And able to check that.

kangdawei - 08:06am Sep 30, 2001 EST (#9985 of 9992)

Name one, Robert. It's not too much trouble to go back and collect tedious links to all your tedious posts, but you can't just type one phrase describing one weapons system you support?

I dare you.

rshowalter - 08:19am Sep 30, 2001 EST (#9986 of 9992)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

You people should get tactical missile defense to work - - but to "support" that - - you'd have to be willing to check some math -- the same missiles that were missing during the Gulf War are still missing, after enormous effort - because you can always justify spending more money -- but when you're told you have a mistake --can't be bothered to look.

You should get air-air missiles that are much better than they are today.

You should get radars that are a lot less vulnerable to jamming or counterfire than today - - and radars that can see anything in the sky.

You should get every anti-missile defense that can work funded - - but not one damn thing that doesn't work on paper and the paperwork should be competent - - which means you need some nay-sayers. You've been funding crap so long, you might have a struggle getting that worked out - - but it would be well worth it.

You should ask the Marine Corps what they need for actual combat effectiveness - and consider it seriously - - especially if the Marines don't allow themselves to get snowed by the contractors, as they did on Osprey.

Body armor - - it could be better.

Combat training - - how many people do you have actually trained to fight in the ways they'd have to in Afghanistan?

rshowalter - 08:20am Sep 30, 2001 EST (#9987 of 9992)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

But let me make another point, that I've made before . . let's see . . .

(5 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense