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.

cantabb - 07:20am Oct 23, 2003 EST (# 15454 of 15458)

rshow55 - 07:11am Oct 23, 2003 EST (# 15452 of 15452)

More of the same !

In complicated systems - there is no sensible alternative - as experience and problems accumulate - to some exception handling and some resorting and reframing.

Too ambiguous to make any sense.

Both Eisenhowers and Bill Casey felt that very strongly........ in the interest of everybody concerned who would be willing to explain themselves to "the average reader of The New York Times." Or the average holder of any of the classes of TIMES stock.

ALL concerning your own personal problems and the resolution you want. Details WITHOUT any supportive evidence.

NOTHING to do with MD !

cantabb - 07:29am Oct 23, 2003 EST (# 15455 of 15458)

rshow55 - 07:15am Oct 23, 2003 EST (# 15453 of 15454)

You cite an article about Rumsfeld, ONLY to bring in this personal matter !

A day's conference with responsible people - which could be by telephone but would be much better with face to face contact - would be useful. The AEA experience is directly relevant to the problems Rumsfeld and the nation are dealing with. I'd donate my services, for expenses and a letter - clear for administrative purposes - that I had worked for the government on the subject on which I actually consulted.

I could also be useful helping the government deal with the very important concerns set out here - and would do so on the same basis. The reasons why this cannot now happen are interesting - and not entirely to the credit of either the government or The New York Times. For reasons that I think are entirely reasonable - if I am to donate my services on this limited basis - I should be contacted by the government. If what I say "is of no concern to them" - it seems right for me to keep doing what I believe is my duty. Which is, right now, working on a demonstration of what "win-win" negotiations have to look like - in complex cases that stumped Nash.

Ask DoD, and tell them what you think you can contribute ! Don't tell us what happened: I can imagine !

Spare the forum !

Same Nash-complex again ?

rshow55 - 08:20am Oct 23, 2003 EST (# 15456 of 15458)
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.

In http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.US84b3EuQaH.4196664@.f28e622/17168 Cantabb says "spare this forum."

Lchic and I are trying to explain something vital for peace and prosperity - something that has screwed up much too often. How to construct and trim stable oscillatory solutions - where nothing else can possibly work - and where these solutions can do well - if people take their time and fit them carefully. 7789-90 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.US84b3EuQaH.4196664@.f28e622/9314

We've also been trying, since September 2000 - to find ways to get me out of "house arrest" and in a situation where I could work . Sometimes "It is easier to get forgiveness than it is to get permission .

Perhaps 14800 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.US84b3EuQaH.4196664@.f28e622/16511 was a little indelicate. But some other things on this thread are indelicate - and I think 14800 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.US84b3EuQaH.4196664@.f28e622/16511 bears repeating.

If things I'm trying to demonstrate could work between me and The New York Times - formally analogous things might be possible in negotiations that now cannot get to closure between nations.

There's an interesting thing in the sparring between me and Cantabb - I appreciate it - and I hope people interested in negotiations notice it. It has become increasingly clear that we agree on a number of basic facts and relations - that we both want a "solution" - though we have differences about what "solution" would be - and that some things between us oscillate on a small time scale - but have an average stability over time. We're "dithering" in several senses - including the formal servomechanism sense.

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

. For many situations a clear yes or no - if it does not oscillate - is equally useful. Clarity is all you need. Either stable answer can be stably accomodated - and often the accomodations work equally well.

. For some other situations, stability requires an oscillation between one answer and another - for logical reasons.

That's a lesson I've been working to teach - explicitly, and by example.

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

We need - to find more reasonable solutions - to convert some oscillations to more stable states - move some "open secrets" to "systems of facts acknowleged" - and some implicit "agreements to disagree" into more explicit "agreements to disagree."

This thread - because it is somewhat important - but not too important - is a good place to prototype these things - so that leaders of nation states and large institutions can do analogous things well when the stakes are much higher.

(2 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense