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 - 03:03pm Sep 26, 2003 EST (# 14018 of 14030)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Cantabb

'You' can mean 'thou'

'You' can mean 'any reader'

'You' can mean that person to whom one is interacting with in a particular post - where there is a contribution to the board

----

Hint : Rather than swimming in minutiae, contribute to the discussion!

lchic - 03:04pm Sep 26, 2003 EST (# 14019 of 14030)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Bush and Putin @ Camp David

In terms of MD

What should each be saying to the other?

lchic - 03:17pm Sep 26, 2003 EST (# 14020 of 14030)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

MD .... UK style

Mass Democracy on the streets

http://www.guardian.co.uk/antiwar/story/0,12809,1050435,00.html

rshow55 - 03:26pm Sep 26, 2003 EST (# 14021 of 14030)
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.

For stable end games - stable agreements - people and groups have to be workably clear on these key questions.

How do they disagree (agree) about logical structure ?

How do they disagree (agree) about facts ?

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

How do they differ in their team identifications ?

Odds are good that if the patterns of agreement (or disagreement) are STABLE and KNOWN they can be decently accomodated.

The leaders CAN'T deal with all things at once - but if they worked out ways to move toward agreement ( and they've done some of that) there might be a lot of progress.

Neither side is being evasive if they move incrementally and carefully.

On planning: From the Preface to STRATEGIES FOR CHANGE: Logical Incrementalism by J. B. Quinn ........... 1980 http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md01000s/md1436.htm

Note that human organizations have to adjust gradually and have to make decisions on the basis of information.

It is vital that the information be correct.

And it is vital that people be able to "agree to disagree" in ways that are clear and stable - and only fight in limited ways - when the fights make sense .

Do Russians and Americans actually know

. How to agree to disagree clearly, without fighting, comfortably, so that they can cooperate stably, safely, and productively ?

If not, both sides need to make a decision to try to learn - under circumstances where agreement on everything is not a workable answer - and hegemony can't work either.

(9 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense