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 - 07:26am Mar 25, 2003 EST (# 10467 of 10476)
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.

Military force is itself vulnerable - and the better suited, the more specialized, for one particular purpose, the more vulnerable it is in some other ways.

The idea that the US can dominate the world at low cost (or any acceptable cost, in either money or lives) is based on assumptions. Hunches. And patterns of judgement from bureacracies that may be as well intentioned and patriotic as NASA - but that are subject to the same human tendencies and fallibilities.

We're facing some conflicts where truth is our only hope. At the level of ideas, of human results, modernity is much, much better in human terms, for all its faults, than the radical islamists. But to deal with ideas, ideals, and patterns of thought - patterns of ideas have to be adressed by patterns of ideas.

If we were prepared to insist on getting facts straight - on getting some common facts checked to closure - and on conduct that could reasonably see the light of day - - enough that stability and solid conclusions were possible - - this would be a hopeful time. Where challenges could be faced.

http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.mZBaaMvd5je.1374786@.f28e622/11900

http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.mZBaaMvd5je.1374786@.f28e622/11902

Until we do - there's chaos ahead.

We need to maintain and augment the good things we have - and face and fix some other things.

10434 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.mZBaaMvd5je.1374786@.f28e622/11983

Without some facts checked to the point where all trust them, in common - coming to agreement - even on something as "well understood" as object geometry - is impossible.

I've been making a suggestion, for years now, that some basic facts about Missile Defense be checked to closure - which would take force. http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/296 Other things could be checked, too. Other things should be. The history of the Cold War, the way it was won, and the way that the patterns used to win it were not taken down, but corrupted a great deal about American and the world - should be checked. The things Eisenhower warned against in his Farewell address have happened. Many other things could be checked. But something needs to be checked and solidified, to serve as a workable refernce. Ideally, a number of subjects should be.

What is essential is that we get some stable mooring to some key facts and relations - technically, about history, and about how smart we are, and aren't. How honorable we are, and aren't. When things are complicated, truth is our only hope. It is a substantial hope, because once people working from different perspectives start doing honest, careful matching, a lot can sort out.

It is human experience that a lot does. When people, implicitly or explicitly, know the difference between different valid maps and perspectives, and muddle and deception.

almarst2003 - 08:26am Mar 25, 2003 EST (# 10468 of 10476)

"truth is our only hope"

There is little hope as long as "truth" is sold and bought on a free market.

almarst2003 - 08:54am Mar 25, 2003 EST (# 10469 of 10476)

Read and FEEL! - http://electroniciraq.net/news/

(7 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense