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.

lchic - 09:31am Apr 12, 2003 EST (# 11258 of 11282)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Iraq is breaking down into tribal-warfare between the S's who had, and the S's who hadn't -- but now expect to 'have'

rshow55 - 10:53am Apr 12, 2003 EST (# 11259 of 11282)
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.

Plenty of ugly stuff going on. Some of it may warn us off some mistakes.

8983 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.03kMaScq6KX.284114@.f28e622/10509

Getting some problems sorted out would do great honor to the United States - and the Bush administration - which, with Blair's administration in UK, is doing some things that are sensible by historical standards. Bush, Blair, and their administrations are doing some things that I think they can reasonably be proud of, in a world with hard choices - though I think they are making some mistakes.

I sympathize with almarst's concerns, share them, and sometimes share his indignation. But I'm struck, lately, by how very well things are going - by humane standards - and in terms of the reasonable national interests of the United States.

Here's a problem summary from Wizard's Chess http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/05/opinion/05SUN1.html

. Washington must simultaneously cope with three separate and potentially grave threats — from Iraq, from North Korea and from the threat of reconstituted international terrorist networks.

The American interests and world interests set out in Wizard's Chess - - have an excellent chance of being well met. Better met than, by historical standards, anyone could have expected. The reasonable needs of other nations have an excellent chance, by historical standards, of being met, too.

These are hopeful developments:

Warning to North Korea on Nuclear Arms By MICHAEL WINES http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/12/international/europe/12MOSC.html

N. Korea Hints It Would Hold U.S. Talks By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Filed at 6:50 a.m. ET http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-NKorea-US.html

N.Korea Makes Big Shift in Nuclear Talks Demand By REUTERS Filed at 8:15 a.m. ET http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-korea-north-ministry.html

I've been spending some more time with Adolf Berle's Power , published in 1969, and especially its chapter III - Philosophies of International Power - which I hope many diplomats read. . Berle's chapter III begins as follows:

" There cannot be institutions of world government without world consensus on their underlying philosopy. Though there are reasons justifying hope that such philosophy and institutions will emerge - indeed are dimly visable on the horizon even now - it would be cruelly unrealistic to overestimate the institutions now existing, still more so to suggest that an idea system commands general assent on which world government could be based. "

Rereading Berle's Chapter II, I find it hard not to be impressed with progress that's been made. And, for all the agony and carnage - and risks before us - optimistic. For all the problems and imperfections - intellectual, moral, and practical - of the world we live in - we're closer to a "world of order" - and humanly good order - than we've ever been before. Some illusions are being made clear, but some strengths and stabilities are, too. For the last fifty years, the UN has been much less than its founders had hoped for - but it may be that now - through a lot of hard work - patterns of international law are being thought and negotiated into being. It seems to me that if people keep at it, a lot could go very well. By historical standards - a lot is going very well now.

We are facing some problems that may not be religious, but are surely philosophical and moral. For stability, and decent function - we must get beyond the Treaty of Westphalia. We must insist on responsibility. And for fundamental reasons - people have to be expected to care about other people - and act that way. Whether or not you're religious - there are essential reasons why the symmettry of the Golden Rule is essential if human arrangements are to work decently.

rshow55 - 10:58am Apr 12, 2003 EST (# 11260 of 11282)
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.

Some standards need to be insisted on - standards that we cannot just assume take care of themselves.

I'm hopeful - but there's plenty of reason for concern, and hard work.

Some of our biggest problems are connected tightly to intellectual-logical problems. I think there's room for improvement on some obvious things there.

Some of the most basic issues, I think, involve notions of dimensions - and I was pleased to see this:

A Brief History of the Multiverse By PAUL DAVIES http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/12/opinion/12DAVI.html

This idea of multiple universes, or multiple realities, has been around for centuries. The scientific justification for it, however, is new.

That "scientific" justification makes some claims about the "reality" of dimensions beyond those of the usual space and time that Steve Kline and I spent a lot of time looking at - from a nutsy-boltsy engineering perspective.

(22 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense