New York Times on the Web Forums
Science
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.
(14778 previous messages)
rshow55
- 10:00am Oct 11, 2003 EST (#
14779 of 14792) 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.
This is superb:
A War-Weary People Reach Out in Pain — and Hope By
JOHN F. BURNS http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/12/weekinreview/12BURN.html
" Perhaps, after all, it is the
politicians and their formulas that matter, not the common
person's voice, at least as expressed to an outsider judged
eager to hear expressions of good will."
Could we have logical problems - control
problems - calibration problems that we might come to
understand, and handle better?
I think so.
http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@6@.4a90f6e9/85
A lot of plots look like images you see in many fractals -
and some plots of this kind that are practical are shown in
books like Analysis of Nonlinear Control Systems by
Dunstan Graham and Duane McRuer 1961 - Dover ed 1971
Some quotes from that fine book are set out in 7895-7 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.cAmUbPYNNVn.1959860@.f28e622/9421
:
"Some of the most unpleasant surprises of which nonlinear
control systems are capable are
1. divergent instability
2. limit cycles
3. multiple equilibrium points.
( end quote )
For large perturbations of nonlinear systems that are not
controlled at a higher level, divergent instability is the
rule - multiple quasi-equilibrium points are not surprises,
but the overwhelming expectation - and limit cycles are the
best, as a practical matter, that anybody can actually hope
for - or can actually get. Very, very often - what happens
looks fractal.
But with care - and switching - designed for particular
cases and calibrated - excellent performance can be achieved.
It isn't likely to happen by accident, though.
Lchic cites this, pointing out something basic,
primordial - and not previously understood nearly well enough:
Rejection really hurts finds brain study http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994257
13464 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.cAmUbPYNNVn.1959860@.f28e622/15155
highlights some pieces by Natalie Angier - that deal
with closely related and vitally important issues:
. In the Crowd's Frenzy, Echoes of the
Wild Kingdom By NATALIE ANGIER http://www.mrshowalter.net/IntheCrowd'sFrenzy.htm
. Why We're So Nice: We're Wired to Cooperate By
NATALIE ANGIER http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/23/health/psychology/23COOP.html
. Of Altruism, Heroism and Evolution's
Gifts in the Face of Terror By NATALIE ANGIER http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/18/health/psychology/18ALTR.html
but we hate , too - and the reasons we do are built
very deep.
. The Urge to Punish Cheats: Not Just
Human, but Selfless By NATALIE ANGIER http://www.mrshowalter.net/UrgeToPunishCheatsNotJustHumanButSelfless.htm
Nicholas Wade deals with an important and related
issue - Play Fair: Your Life May Depend on It http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/21/weekinreview/21WADE.html
:
We need to understand these things better - not only
emotionally - but as control problems , too. I think
this thread has worked toward that - dealing with MD - where
there are control problems, too.
14006 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.cAmUbPYNNVn.1959860@.f28e622/15712
klsanford0
- 11:54am Oct 11, 2003 EST (#
14780 of 14792)
rshow55:
From Cooper's Cato quote above http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-337es.html
:
"First, any NMD system will probably have at least two
different media for the detection and discrimination of
incoming warheads—radar and infrared (IR). For the NMD system
to be fooled, effective countermeasures would have to
successfully simulate both the radar and IR signatures of a
real warhead. The statement makes a lot of assumptions about
what our sensors, guidance, and delivery systems can actually
do do. Or could possibly do.
1667 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.cAmUbPYNNVn.1959860@.f28e622/2087
Key questions about specific missile defense systems can be
discussed without using any classified information at all.
Here are the key questions, for any specific system:
Can it see the target?
Can it hit the target?
Can it hurt the target?
Unbelievable!! Can it be true...?? Is this the first of
twenty thousand posts where Showalter actually makes one
single reference to MD, even in the midst of his usual
Nonsense...??
"can it hurt the target?"
Well, Mr. Showalter, most nuclear explosions tend to do
some slight damage...
klsanford0
- 12:45pm Oct 11, 2003 EST (#
14781 of 14792)
Misinterpretation of Showalter's question in the above
post...
(11 following messages)
New York Times on the Web Forums
Science
Missile Defense
|