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.

fredmoore - 07:31am Oct 7, 2003 EST (# 14510 of 14529)

Robert,

Yeah Yeah Yeah .... but ... What about THAAD?

Any thoughts? Can we check those rascally 'incomings' by connecting a few well place high altitude dots? Will the fate of the western world and the Eisenhowers' gift to posterity depend on creating symmetrical and harmonious solutions to jury standards which bring closure to new HA systems that pass all the loop tests and blow those suckers out of the sky?

@@@@@@@@@

Those who think

that Rshow wastes

the bounty of this for'm

never stop, think o' the clock

that keeps a PC warm

which being rate and repetitious

boring o'er the norm

gives the stuff that rights the truth

as pattern 'pears from loom.

So those that put this stirling chap

behind ignore's bright gloom

will suffer fates and needle grates

as dots pile up and tangled threads doubloon.

T-B 2003

rshow55 - 08:14am Oct 7, 2003 EST (# 14511 of 14529)
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.

There's a point I've been trying to teach - not live through - that is relevant here.

To get fully workable cooperations - based on knowledge - it often happens that the actors involved have to get to the edge of a fight - enough so that the people involved get to know what they can do - and how they are vulnerable - and have a sensible degree of fear.

Then - people should know enough to back off - arrange a really workable and reasonably fair cooperation - and go on safely.

The solutions that are stable oscillate - go back and forth - with small dissippation - safely and even gracefully. A lot of partnerships (including some awkward ones - such as the one between Gilbert and Sullivan) work like that.

If people have the good judgement to cooperate rather than have uncontrollable fights. ( Little fights are unavoidable - and useful to generate information . )

The "fight" can be small - it can be in words - but I think the principle applies pretty generally. It happens all the time.

I hate to see the point illustrated by a misfire here. It is something I wanted to teach, face to face, to responsible people in the government.

11885 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.I0otbe4BL0C.1007128@.f28e622/13508 some details, including this:

11737 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.I0otbe4BL0C.1007128@.f28e622/13347

"I would like to be able to set up something very much like AEA again - and do it honestly - and work with Lchic in that format.

"I'd like to be able to do that with people involved in AEA fully informed, and satisfied to the extent that was reasonably possible.

"In ways that were reasonably satisfactory to my wife, her husband, the New York Times, other members of families involved, the federal government, and other people more-or-less connected. In ways that most people at the UN, if they happened to notice, might think fair.

With clarity on fundamentals - it should be possible.

I think the following poems may bear reading here - in historical context - and remembering the fictions so often used on these boards.

We're living through an effort (and not only mine) to produce a paradigm change.

http://www.mrshowalter.net/see281_SendInClearNCryfrHelp.htm

Reading the piece by Joy at the end of http://www.mrshowalter.net/see281_SendInClearNCryfrHelp.htm I thought a real person was crying for help. Maybe I misinterpreted.

We ought to sort things out. We're at a place where it should be possible to satisfy everybody's reasonable interests. If we pass through this part of the cycle - it will be a while before it sets up that way again.

rshow55 - 08:47am Oct 7, 2003 EST (# 14512 of 14529)
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.

Fredmoore - on actually building a missile defense system that stood a good chance against NK stuff: http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.I0otbe4BL0C.1007128@.f28e622/16220

Polynomial processing is a way of "connecting the dots" - - I put out the key result - in as close to the form Casey suggested as I could, it seemed to me - in the early 1990's. http://www.mrshowalter.net/pap2/ and in my judgement, the work I was assigned to do - and did do - could be of material assistance in defending the US. But I'd have to be talked to - with enough flexibility that people could actually use my stuff. Some of the insights have to be taught - not just "presented" as bad math professors often "present things" - leaving the people who are supposed to learn the material baffled.

http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.I0otbe4BL0C.1007128@.f28e622/15851

Designing control system with internal simulation - that servo between related families of simulations - is a new departure - and I'd have to be permitted to teach it. Maybe behind a one way mirror. But with verbal and computer feedback.

(17 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense