New York Times on the Web Forums
Technology has always found its greatest consumer in a nation's
war and defense efforts. Since the last attempts at a "Star Wars"
defense system, has technology changed considerably enough to make
the latest Missile Defense initiatives more successful? Can such an
application of science be successful? Is a militarized space
inevitable, necessary or impossible?
Read Debates, a
new Web-only feature culled from Readers' Opinions, published every
(401 previous messages)
- 08:19am Mar 12, 2002 EST (#402
3/12/02 12:18am includes this:
" I agree with you that NMD is a program that is
50 years old and has proven to be terminally challenged by the
laws of physics.
That's a key question of fact that needs to be widely,
persuasively explained , so that the people who have to make
decisions relating to that fact can do so. Because right answers
matter a great deal here.
3/12/02 12:18am continues:
"Having said that, however, I do not believe the
world turns based on merits alone. Pathos (either of a nation or
people) matter and more often than not, it is the driving force of
the events that shape history. "
Pathos and folly may be understandable, but still regrettable,
when matters of life, death, and agony are at stake. Here's a piece
of MD382 rshow55
"Facts and ideas, combined together in space and
time so that people can "connect the dots", as Erica Goode
says in Finding Answers In Secret Plots http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/10/weekinreview/10GOOD.html
form the ideas that people and groups have. -- These ideas are
patterns, which work well enough to sustain action and belief in
some ways, though they may be totally invalid otherwise. These
ideas, constructed by "connecting the dots" may produce grossly
pathological results -- . . . Or they may be correct.
. (Almarst commented on Goode's piece in MD384
3/11/02 12:29pm )
"To judge that, one checks the "facts" "connected
together" and one sees if the pattern conjured up fits more facts
- - including many more facts. The process of judging this, like
the process of putting the "explanation" together - happens in
people's minds - and can't be forced. But the matching process --
the "connecting of the dots" -- is what effective persuasion is
all about. And the internet offers new ways, some shown here,
of connecting information in space and time that would otherwise
be diffused and unconnectable.
Because the results of "pathos" may be so serious, almarst-2001
3/11/02 10:56am it seems worthwhile to set out postings from
manjumicha2001 - so that if anyone wishes to "connect some dots"
they may form some judgements about who (s)he is, and who (s)he
3/1/02 6:32pm ... MD21 manjumicha2001
3/1/02 7:09pm ... MD27 manjumicha2001
3/1/02 7:19pm ... MD30 manjumicha2001
3/1/02 7:43pm ... MD35 manjumicha2001
3/1/02 8:22pm ... MD40 manjumicha2001
3/1/02 8:31pm ... MD226 manjumicha2001
3/11/02 1:28am ... MD375 manjumicha2001
3/12/02 12:18am ...
Wouldn't it be dramatic if "easy inferences" from such
dot-connecting happened to be right?
- 08:21am Mar 12, 2002 EST (#403
If people in positions of power and trust in the Bush
administration are taking, and have taken, the stances in MD401 manjumicha2001
3/12/02 12:18am and said and done what they have -- isn't that
If people agreed that " NMD is a program that is 50
years old and has proven to be terminally challenged by the laws of
physics." what would it make practical and moral sense for us
- 11:50am Mar 12, 2002 EST (#404
Well, on the other hand, you will have hard time proving NMD
crowd wrong when all they need to repeat is; "system is not perefect
but we are getting there. we need more research and testings". I
mean you can't discredit something that doesn't exist yet, right?
The hazy promise of possibilities occasionally showcased by
controlled (or fixed as you might call it) tests (always accompanied
by disclaimers limiting the objectives and parameters of the test),
coupled with public's yearnings for "ya soon we will be able to nuke
you without worrying about your puny 20th century missiles" - type
of future, will certainly guarantee $300 billion expedniture for
next 5 years....that would be my bet if i am a wagering type.
- 12:49pm Mar 12, 2002 EST (#405
In my view, the question is not if its feasible or not. One
should assume it may become effective to the certain degree -
the degree of effectiveness which will be surelly kept in
And here is the major danger: Unlike the MAD could be established
based on an openly known and verifiable capability - number and type
of warheads and missiles, the MD creates the unpredictable
situation. With unknown consequences and possible "assimetric"
New York Times on the Web Forums