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 - 03:37pm Sep 3, 2003 EST (# 13482 of 13484)
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've been pushing some points for more than three years.

http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md5000s/MD5180.HTM of June 15, 2001 . . reads in part:

But in terms of word count , hard thought, and the amount of human contact and checking to be expended, efforts need to be increased .... and increased very much.

AFTER much more of a focused, fully worked out situation in terms of facts and arguments was in place "higher rank" negotiations would work better.

. . .

Perhaps the leaders can't reasonably agree -- or even reasonably communcate -- unless a body of common knowledge exists in the staffs and socio-technical systems that they stand in front of -- but cannot fully understand or control.

This thread, I believe, makes it clear that there are massive differences of opinion and definition -- and deep, dangerous chasms of incomprehension and lack of sympathy, between the US and Russia -- and that adressing these would be useful.

. . . .

For human communication to be reliable - as human animals inescapably are --- word count, crosschecking and crossreferencing have to be extensive -- so that common schema are formed, and "meetings of the minds" are humanly possible.

In the short, stereotyped, and high pressure meetings between national leaders there is no time for this.

This thread, I believe, shows many of the patterns that would make improved communication possible -- using the much increased memory, and ability to tolerate complexity -- that the internet provides.

Whatever else one may wish to say, Putin and Bush have very different world views -- and so do their staffs.

In a few hours of contact between principles and staffs, this isn't going to be bridged.

Without techniques of mutual checking that both sides can trust it isn't going to be bridged.

http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md5000s/MD5070.HTM includes this:

" If George W. Bush found a way to clean up the messes left by the Cold War, get rid of the terror of nuclear weapons, and use American leadership, in cooperation with other countries, in a way that made the United States safer, more prosperous, and more respected, and all legitimate nation states more secure, he'd go down in history as one of the greatest presidents of the United States. "

" If he blows it, the reaction could be just the opposite.

For things to get better, to get from current stresses to that hope -- ways have to be found to deal with the complex, sometime ugly things as they are -- so that they may be dealt with, and changed for the better.

MD5071 rshowalter 6/14/01 7:35am ... http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md5000s/MD5070.HTM . . . reads in part:

"Some points my old partner, Professor Stephen J. Kline of Stanford, made about scientific controversy, specifically linked to the somewhat out-of-the-way field of fluid mechanics, offer, I think, nice analogies - removed enough from the passions of most readers, to be useful in considering the mess the world is now in about nuclear terror and related military issues. . . . . . "there are also misunderstandings along a spectrum from entirely innocent to entirely self serving. " . . . " You need to have enough command of details, and enough ability to establish facts before witnesses, to be able to establish these differences. "

. . .

" We need to hold clearly in mind the Guideline for Scholarly Controversy . The human mind is a wonderful associative engine, but a weak logical engine. As a result we all tend to emphasize the data we have taken and know well. For example, my own group overemphasized for a time the role of sublayer streaks and ejections. We need to keep asking ourselves two question

(2 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense