New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

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 Thursday.

rshow55 - 09:05am Mar 21, 2003 EST (# 10294 of 10300)
Can we do a better job of finding truth? YES. Click "rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have done and worked for on this thread.

Workable systems - at the level of neurons - small groups - large groups - and groups of groups - tend to work themselves out - with interfaces and multiple levels of control - according to a pattern much like the picture in the Maslow reference.

There have to be limits on the Treaty of Westphalia rules - connections, and constraints -between actors at "the top of their pyramids" and of course that means limitations on the US as well.

The NYT editorial page has been making important points that are in large part dead opposed to things Bush is doing - for important, valid reasons.

The Era of Preventative War http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/425 - which was, for a time, the lead editorial yesterday, is an example, and set out key concerns very clearly.

Almarst is making important points.

Sovereign authority Bush asserts the right to start a war at any time, without anyone’s permission By Michael Kinsley of SLATE.COM is an important, very clear piece. http://www.msnbc.com/news/888245.asp?0dm=C12MO

We need to get a workable system of international law negotiated into being - and that means some issues have to become clearer - and there needs to be some exception handling , and understanding of how that exception handling is to be judged. There is no going back to the Treaty of Westphalia.

We can do a lot better now.

Doing so, every reasonable concern that Almarst has raised can, I believe, be much better handled than today. And the reasonable concerns of NYT editorial pages can be reasonably handled, too. I'd hope that, on things that count, Krugman could be satisfied. And, of course, that means that some Republicans will have to be embarrassed on some key things that matter. Without having to be embarrassed at all about some other things.

An admonition that says "never fight" can't work - and "never start a fight" can't work all the time either.

We have to negotiate some workable patterns of exception handling into being. In any well set up heirarchical system with interfaces of mutual constraint - there are patterns of exception handling - and often enough, in the ways that matter in context - some statisitical variation, some coercion, and some deception are intrinsic parts of a workable system. How well that system works, in the ways that matter, depends on a great deal, and involves both practical and moral questions. In a context.

Except at the cost of continued and escalating chaos, danger and ugliness, there is no going back to the Treaty of Westphalia. We can do better than that. If the US military does well, as it seems to be - and if Tony Blair is given enough backing by the US - the big things that need to fall into place for that to happen seem to be falling into place now.

rshow55 - 11:35am Mar 21, 2003 EST (# 10295 of 10300)
Can we do a better job of finding truth? YES. Click "rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have done and worked for on this thread.

In 9009 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.HEzJaGaJ5V6.0@.f28e622/10535 I cited links to an arguement I made in 2001 that may suggest something in negotiations about surrender that are going on today.

An aesthetically satisfying justice can be defined for each and every set of assumptions and perspectives that can be defined. But sometimes there are too many sets of assumptions and perspectives that cannot be escaped in the complex circumstances that are actually there. . . .. .. . .

. http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md00100s/md792_794.htm

The situations Tina Rosenberg describes, and some circumstances today, do not fully permit a completely satisfactory justice. They are too complicated. . . . .

Punishment can be important, and often is. But it is not the only thing involved.

I hope all the Iraqi forces find ways to surrender, and can be offered ways to surrender.

I hope they surrender in ways that they can be proud of, considering things with decent balance. In a way that preserves things they can reasonably be proud of. Rather than fight for things they ought to want to turn away from and be ashamed of.

Surrender rather than fight ineffectively and die trivially for the ugly, destructive and shameful purpose of preserving the reign of Saddam for a few extra minutes, hours or days.

lchic - 01:17pm Mar 21, 2003 EST (# 10296 of 10300)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

The big-bash on Baghdad 30 BIG explosions ....

Civillian casualties will increase

Medical supplies - few to non - to treat injury

The Palestinians urge suicide bombing --- rather than being silent then waiting to gain the best from post war peace negotiations

Turkey - still has desires on the Northern Kurds ... were it that all oil revenues from N Iraq be re-directed to them via UN ... would Turkey still have interest?

(4 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense