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 - 08:12am Jul 3, 2003 EST (# 12819 of 12824)
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.

"The thing that jumped out at me, Robert, after all your harping about umpires, was the Harrison pointed out that the president is the umpire for our multi-branched government."

And under our system of government - his isn't the only opinion that counts. I'll read http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres26.html . Thanks.

12553 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.pz60bGgsmNd.0@.f28e622/14209 includes this:

It is logically proper to "talk things to death" - talk them to stability - and THEN summarize - with matching to internal logic and circumstances carefully done BEFORE the summary is undertaken.

That's how human discourse that actually works in practice usually happens - if you go back and check.

. Be sure you're right. . . . . THEN go ahead.

The long and the short of it is you need both long and short.

The long has to be right - and has to come first.

Leadership by "intuition" or "doctrine" - without much more - is dangerous - essentially certain to go wrong.

But there are enough facts and stable relations in the world that we can get most things right - when it matters enough and we work at it.

It helps if the "umpire" - even if he's President - can make a clear distinction between the role of "umpire" and the role of "cheerleader."

Sometimes, it seems to me, some concise things do end up getting said here. There are basic human needs 666 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.pz60bGgsmNd.0@.f28e622/826 and they're simple enough to deal with in short speeches.

But behind those speeches, if they're good ones - there has to be a lot of thought - and often - that means a lot of word count.

rshow55 - 08:25am Jul 3, 2003 EST (# 12820 of 12824)
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.

12532 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.pz60bGgsmNd.0@.f28e622/14188

K.I.S.S. stands for "Keep It Simple, Stupid" or, more recently and positively "Keep It Smart and Simple." 12500 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.pz60bGgsmNd.0@.f28e622/14154

"There's a problem with long and complex. And another problem with short. . . . . The long and the short of it, I think, is that you need both long and short. From the long - the short condenses. ( And, with enough care, can condense reliably to useful answers, fit to purpose. )

Before a responsible person or group condenses a discourse to the short answers that a leader can use - that many people can remember - those answers better be right. Or right enough. That's often forgotten.

Here are some "KISSes"

" Be sure you're right. Then go ahead. - - - - has to happen at different levels - and in cycles - till it converges in the ways that matter.

It isn't so hard to find out the ways that matter - and get to convergence - if people check their work in the ways that make sense and keep at it ( for important problems, keep at it even after it gets "boring." )

Map making shows examples of the main problems that matter in description. The map has to fit what it is supposed to. That takes matching - and often different points of view. But there are right and wrong answers - and by matching you can tell which is which.

" Optimal solutions to technically defined problems, in a clear context EXIST. They are worth finding and funding.

They can be found, and funded.

Once the physical solution is identified - it is much clearer what that social arrangements needed to implement the solution are. It is very hard to go the other way around.

Eisenhower thought that was a very basic point - and my "marching orders" were to find such physical solutions - and ways to implement them.

I've done the best I could here on this board, with the format as it is. On Sept 25, 2000 - I thought I'd work a day - and then be debriefed face to face, and permitted to work. Since that time, I've assumed that I was supposed to debrief here.

lchic - 09:15am Jul 3, 2003 EST (# 12821 of 12824)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Gisterme ... the speech you're advocating ... (not got much time tonight) .... could you summarise it - here's the link

http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres26.html

lchic - 09:44am Jul 3, 2003 EST (# 12822 of 12824)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

http://www.guardian.co.uk/

(2 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense