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 - 09:43am May 13, 2003 EST (# 11623 of 11636)
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.

MD1189 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.2vqVab969e0.291510@.f28e622/1517 includes this:

Years ago, I had the good fortune to be invited to testify before a Senate committee on technology - testifying on the uses of mathematical modeling as one of a number of aids to judgement ( I was glad to be able to do this, since my only formal math credential is a "D" that I got in baby calculus at as a Cornell University undergraduate.) And after the testimony, I was nominated to an Office of Technology Assessment committee on Innovation and Patent Policy -- a committee that was influential in decisions that led to a Patent Re-examination procedure , and the establishing of a Court of Patent Appeals -- changes that made patents worth more than before.

Anyway, as a committee, we ran amok -- because, though we were "packed" to represent conflicting interests, we agreed completely on what we felt needed to be done. And so we decided to go up to Capitol Hill, and talk to the responsible Senators, Representatives, and staffers. This was an outrageous thing for us to do, by some standards.

The head of OTA came in to talk to us, and try to dissuade us. (We paid careful attention to him, but we went ahead.)

Here is what he said:

" In this town, some think that it is all right to do anything that isn't specifically prohibited. But it isn't that easy. There is one standard, one test, that has to apply, to be effective in this town. You have to ask, of whatever you're going to do . . . .

" What would this look like, and how would it be judged, if it was written up, in detail, in THE NEW YORK TIMES? ( I noticed that, though we were in DC, the TIMES was the paper chosen.)

The man went on to emphasize that the point wasn't that our doings would be reported in the paper. The point was that there were community standards, about what was good function, and what wasn't, on which people with enough literacy and stature to be interested in reading the TIMES would agree. And these community standards made for orderly and effecive behavior, and were of compelling practical and moral force.

The rest of MD1189, and posts thereafter, are interesting, too. http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.2vqVab969e0.291510@.f28e622/1517

I'm trying to meet those standards.

It seems to me that the NYT needs to do a better job of deserving the status it has long enjoyed - and done so much, over time, to earn.

But by and large, by reasonable standards, I think its prestige has been earned.

Though I've had a much harder time, dealing with the TIMES, than I expected when I came to Washington - under circumstances where I thought a meeting with NYT people was quite properly set up - in September 2000. Because of the problems I ran into then, and have had since, I've been less effective than I'd hoped to be. I think Casey, cynical as he was, would have been astonished at some of the problems that have been involved.

rshow55 - 03:23pm May 13, 2003 EST (# 11624 of 11636)
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.

I think Casey, cynical as he was, would have been astonished at some of the problems that have been involved. Maybe amused by some. Horrified by some.

But he would have been impressed, too. Moved, I think, and respectful of a great deal that has happened, or been related to the work done here since September 2000.

Sympathetic with some of the binds people involved have been in, too.

And respectful of a great deal of the work of Lchic , who has worked with me as a partner since June 2000 - the most intellectually distinguished partner I've ever had, though Steve Kline was wonderful, too.

If I'd known, in 1981, or 1991, or 1995, some of the things that I know now - things I've worked out with lchic , and the help of others as well - I think many millions of lives could have been saved, or made much better. And the world would be a much safer place. I'm sure a lot of people could say similar things - if only they'd known things, at past times, they could have made better decisions.

But it seems that some things worked out with lchic, if they were actually used, could make things better now . For that to happen, it seems to me, I have to find a way to work - which means that some security clearance problems need finally to be resolved.

The question

"how would my actions look, written up in detail on the pages of the New York Times?"

is a pretty good question.

I think the answer would be "they'd look pretty good, though there have been some problems."

I think the NYT would look pretty good, too. But there have been some problems - and some of them illustrate in basic ways why problems that "look soluble" at one level don't ever get solved. Though, with some changes that look simple enough - such problems could be solved.

"When you're up to your ass in alligators, it is hard to remember that your objective was to drain the swamp."

How is it possible to deal both with immediate imperatives - and patterns that provide longer term, larger scale payoffs? These objectives aren't contradictory. But they need to be handled in a structured way, or workable responses are classified out of existence.

I've broken some rules. I'm thinking of doing it again.

(12 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense