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 - 04:16pm Sep 26, 2003 EST (# 14026 of 14030)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Showalter an interesting set of posts re cooperative negotiation

http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?08@13.kizsbh9UJr6.2123687@.f28e622/15727

jorian319 - 04:34pm Sep 26, 2003 EST (# 14027 of 14030)

It is often easier to sort things out at a relatively small scale - get things worked out at that relatively small scale - and then transfer what has been learned to larger scales - where the stakes are much higher.

Isn't that what Langley did when he was trying to beat the Wright brothers to first flight? IIRC, he embarrassed himself mightily, and more than once. That is because one of the first principles of engineering is "YOU CAN'T JUST MAKE IT BIGGER!" And when the stakes are much higher, it is even more imperative to resist the urge to simply upscale solutions that seem to work in micro.

While Langley was dumping successive aerodromes into the drink, Will and Orv were tweaking their full-scale glider to verify their ability to control it. Langley tried to overcome the fact that he had neglected the issue of control by applying more (excessive) power. (His engine put out over 50hp, and weighed less than the Wrights' 12hp unit that powered the famous Kitty Hawk flights.)

Reduced efficiency can more than offset gains in brute power, especially where control is lacking.

See? I can be as platitudinous as Robert!

cantabb - 04:35pm Sep 26, 2003 EST (# 14028 of 14030)

rshow55 - 03:26pm Sep 26, 2003 EST (# 14021 of 14024)

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

rshow55 - 03:40pm Sep 26, 2003 EST (# 14022 of 14024)

After stable "agreements to disagree" - there's time, and safety - for incremental agreements to form and focus. .........

More examples of 'wildly digressive monologues', despite ALL the discussion to stay away from them. As if one STILL needed to. And, for those involved in perpetuating it, it's NOTHING unusual.

Because "connecting the dots" works so well - when "loop tests" are used - and when people ask for balance from many perspectives - there is a lot to hope for.

WHAT "dots" are you trying "to connect." What "loop tests" you have used ? Endless self-references to generalities on everything: ain't that !

I don't think this thread has been a waste.

Again, depends on what you think is "waste" [IF these inane monologues are NOT] ?

rshow55 - 03:43pm Sep 26, 2003 EST (# 14023 of 14024)

But this thread is surely limited in some key ways. Some jobs - just because of the geometry of the situation, and the number of interconnections - need staffing.

SO ? Use another medium !

rshow55 by-line: Can we do a better job of finding truth? YES.

And what have YOU done about it ?

Click "rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have done and worked for on this thread.

What it is that "you have done and worked for" ? LIST them, specifically.

WHY wqould some one bother 'clicking' to see more of what's ALREADY seen here in plenty !

cantabb - 04:48pm Sep 26, 2003 EST (# 14029 of 14030)

rshow55 - 04:14pm Sep 26, 2003 EST (# 14025 of 14028)

Cantabb - we disagree on some key things.

At least you got that right !

Maybe lchic and I have been like the mosquito in fredmoore's mosquito and the elephant joke.

If you prefer THAT. Just THINK about it !

Bush and Putin know that answer. They also know what relation, if any, they have with almarst and gisterme .

Back to the poster identity speculations ?

If that relation is at all close - at least at the level of simulation - a staffed "going over" of what has been said on this thread might be a useful way to clarify what each side thinks - and what disagreements are worth clarifying.

Delusionary NONSENSE !

You've said NOTHING of any substance on anything here. You see anything 'unique' in these sunday school generalities ?

Posts by Almarst are set out and posted separately at http://www.mrshowalter.net/PostsBy_Almarst.htm - a list of links which would take 130 pages to print.

Posts by Gisterme are set out and posted separately at http://www.mrshowalter.net/PostsBy_Gisterme.htm - which is a 32 page list of links.

SO ?

Here's a fact. It is often easier to sort things out at a relatively small scale - get things worked out at that relatively small scale - and then transer what has been learned to larger scales - where the stakes are much higher.

SO ?

(1 following message)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense