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
(759 previous messages)
- 12:09pm Mar 22, 2002 EST (#760
Would this 'single large city' be Homeland or World?
- 12:17pm Mar 22, 2002 EST (#761
On the MARKET ... the price of a stock is said to C O R R E C
The MARKET .... knows the correct price (that's assuming both
buyers and sellers have full and perfect and truthful information)
So if the MARKET worked in a perfect way stock prices would
always be correct.
The point about the MARKET is that it is the place to put money
... and money for putting is continually available.
If the MARKET worked perfectly - then - 'inflation' .... paying
more to get the same ... would not be the factor it is, and has
been, for the last thousand years .... where it (inflation) is seen
in the demise in buying power of the 'face value' of the coin of the
realm ... all nations.
- 12:23pm Mar 22, 2002 EST (#762
RShow55: "Mazza, do you have a reasonable reason for questioning
the paragraph above?"
It has never been observed except in your IMAGINATION!!!!
We can speculate about pixie dust and magic wands too. Scientific
method does not include the word maybe.
If you care to be scientifically rigorous then you must give
credence to the fact that during the test last week we did employ
ballons and "defeated" the decoys. There has been no evidence that
balloons have been employed by NK, China, Iraq, Iran or any other
countries that are trying to develop MRBMs or ICBM.
- 12:34pm Mar 22, 2002 EST (#763
Markets do what they do -- sometimes very well - sometimes
terribly - - and there are issues of fact and context involved that
are very important. Market "imperfections" like the massive
overinvestment in optic cable long lines, Enron , and many
other massive disproportions show that, though the market can be
superb for some things -- it ought not to be worshiped.
We need to fit what we do to facts , as they are -- and to
the complexities, human and organizational, that are there.
There are plenty of times when an "ethic of common provision" is
absolutely essential - and arrangements based on that ethic are
essential - for societies, and systems of societies.
But logic at the "sound bite level" can't serve a lot of
important needs -- because things are just too complicated.
When we apply SIMPLE models of structure to circumstances that
have a more complicated structure than we are thinking of, we can
get into trouble.
We can fail to see how things work.
And we can be misled by thinking we see "contradictions" where
there are no logical contradictions -- though there may be aesthetic
or moral tensions.
A complex system can be two "contradictory" things at the same
time -- in different places within the larger structure -- without
Bertrand Russell got caught up with this one -- but for
complicated circumstances, and for dealing with complicated
histories, it is an essential thing to know.
If you know it -- solutions that seem "classified out of
existence" are seen, and these solutions can be real.
Some moral points can get clarified, too.
. . . . .
At the level of logic - there are things that need to be
clarified -- some things said by "postmodernists," taken alone, deny
the possibility of workable certainty. But if you look at logical
structures of connection in the real world, and some statistical
arguments that have been much discussed since John Maynard Keyne's
wrote A Treatise On Probability . . . we can get to
enough certainty, and enough agreement, to be a lot safer and more
comfortable than we are today.
Here's an example:
MISSILE DEFENSE is an important subject. Current
missile defense programs cannot work, are a waste, and mislead us.
There is no contradiction between these points.
- 12:34pm Mar 22, 2002 EST (#764
"...We know that the MD programs set out in public can't work
That's simply not the truth, Robert. I challenge you to back up
those words. I know you can't or you would have long ago...as all
the things you've been saying "can't be done" are gradually coming
to pass. Four out of six BMD successes, is the evidence I hold up to
refute your claim, Robert. The claims you make like that, ones based
on emotion rather than fact, can only work within a fog of
ignorance, Robert. The fog on the technical feasibility of BMD is
rapidly clearing. What's being revealed does not at all support what
"...MD, in the ways that matter to me, at least, appears to be
a massive fraud. I'm not alone in feeling so..."
Now that is true. You're a part of a tiny minority that
feels that way. Unless you can come up with some realistic
objections to MD, such as proving the threat doesn't exist,
or proving infeasibility of MD (that gets tougher every day).
Everybody knows it's easy to proclaim "fraud" but not so easy to
show it. In the case of BMD it's particularly hard to prove some
sort of fraud is going on because, for a military system under
development, the MD program is very open. All flight tests
are public. Test performance whether success or failure is public
Talk is cheap and claims (both pro and con) are easy to make
about something like a technical development project so long as the
end result of the project is still over the horizon. However, once
results began to become manifest, one way or the other, talk becomes
less cheap because claims become accountable to reality.
It's far easier to speculate about what can't be seen than about
- 12:40pm Mar 22, 2002 EST (#765
Mazza, I think you're being unbelievably stupid and dishonest in
3/22/02 12:23pm . Perhaps others disagree.
Science deals with notions of probability all the time - -
And "we defeated balloons" is a statement that means no
more than it does -- you have to think of the context. And I notice
that you are not responding to my clear point in MD752.
New York Times on the Web Forums