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 - 09:57am Sep 13, 2003 EST (# 13639 of 13644)
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.

It is vital that people be able to find out what happened when it matters enough.

I made that point in May 14, 2001 EST (#3870 - and almarst followed on with what I think is one of his most distinguished posts - a response to gisterme well worth reading almarst-2001 - 10:32pm May 14, 2001 EST (#3871 http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md3000s/md3869.htm

I repeated the point, connecting it to one of my favorte limericks, in

http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md2000s/md2547.htm . . . . . . http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md11000s/md11902.htm

The truth matters because we have to make decisions - other people have to make decisions - and both life and logic can be complicated.

I was asked to look for stability conditions in what Kline later called "sociotechnical systems" - and asked to find end games that resulted in stable, efficient, humane function by Eisenhower. 12444 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.sPWMbt28FIe.9001034@.f28e622/14097

As of now, the Bush administration refuses to face - or clarify - key questions about the logical structure, facts, weights, and team identifications and rules involved in their interaction with other groups and nations.

And refuses to face - or clarify - key questions about the logical structure, facts, weights, team identifications and rules involved in their interaction with American citizens.

That is a recipe for a "war of all against all" - an unraveling of decency - without any possibility of a decent end.

A child should be able to see that.

When people and groups disagree , these are key questions:

How do they disagree about logical structure ?

How do they disagree about facts ?

How do they disagree about questions of how much different things matter ?

How do they differ in their team identifications ?

. What makes them angry - what threatens them - and why?

With those questions asked more often - a lot more could be sorted out between people than is now. Lying would be technically harder - and converging on good solutions would be technically easier. http://www.mrshowalter.net/DBeauty.html

The most useful ideas aren't fancy. If they're right and basic, you can teach them to kids - kids at every level above the sensorimotor on Piaget's scale http://www.mrshowalter.net/PiagetCognitiveLimits.htm - in ways that are useful.

And we can often find the useful ideas that are there to be found. It isn't hopeless. It takes work that we can do. I think we have to.

Human actions work best according to the following pattern:

" Get scared .... take a good look ..... get organized ..... fix it .... recount so all concerned are "reading from the same page ...... go on to other things."

People ought to be scared by now - scared enough to do some looking. How, as a matter of mechanics and logic is is possible for people to "take a good look" and "get organized" and get so that they are "reading off the same page" . .? This New York Times - Science - Missile defense thread has been a big effort to sort out problems like this - and not only for me. http://www.mrshowalter.net/Sequential.htm There's a lot of effort represented there. I don't think that it is cheating for me to point that out. I posted 13624 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.sPWMbt28FIe.9001034@.f28e622/15317 pointing out some background about this thread. And reposted it on the Guardian http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/479

That wasn't cheating.

(5 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense