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.

rshow55 - 10:33am Oct 25, 2003 EST (# 15605 of 15609)
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.

Re being Armed to Excess

If at every step you ask "what's the best I can do assuming my adversary does his worst to me?" - and that is all that is considered - without looking at interactions at different scales - you have stasis - explosive instabilities - and a lot of the problems we have now.

The question of defending against adversaries has to be considered - in general - but it isn't the only question - though too often it has been.

And the scale of the interaction sequences bears looking at. There are solutions to a lot of "balanaces of terror" that work pretty well. . .

Damn good thing, too.

I'm getting back to it - sorry to bother you, cantabb .

"to cantabb" might become a verb - for a general pattern for messing up anything and everything.

cantabb - 10:37am Oct 25, 2003 EST (# 15606 of 15609)

rshow55 - 10:21am Oct 25, 2003 EST (# 15601 of 15604)

We have technical problems here, ........ with the most important facts explainable in nursery rhymes and children's books.

In a world where sociotechnical systems ......... practical ways to stabilize them.

Once that is known - win-win solutions are easy.

And win-win solutions are all around us. More happen, in small and little things, every day. That's platitudinous, but basic.

There are some technical aspects of the issue that Nash missed, and people in Eisenhower's generation knew enough to be concerned about. .......There have to be both pluses and minus for stability.

More on your Nash-complex !

rshow55 - 10:22am Oct 25, 2003 EST (# 15602 of 15604)

I've been working steadily - pretty happily - trying to get the proposal framed so Sulzberger will want to agree to what I ask. I think I'm making headway at that, too.

On ANYTHING specific?

I want to maximize the advantages to the TIMES to the extent I possibly can.

How kind and considerate ! You "want to maximize the advantages to the TIMES.." What are these "advantages" and how are you quite thoughtfully trying to "maximize" them ? How to "bow out gracefully"?

With a little for me.

Yes, of course !

rshow55 - 10:26am Oct 25, 2003 EST (# 15603 of 15604)

I'll get back to it. Wanted to set something out that I thought was of general interest.

The issues involved certainly do involve missile defense - and the dangers it adresses. We need diplomacy that can work.

And there you are entrusted to do all that !

I'm trying to accomodate Jorian's idea that I should write a letter of thanks and commendation to the TIMES - among other things.

Don't keep us waiting.

cantabb - 10:41am Oct 25, 2003 EST (# 15607 of 15609)

rshow55 - 10:33am Oct 25, 2003 EST (# 15605 of 15606)

Re being Armed to Excess

If at every step you ask "what's the best I can do assuming my adversary does his worst to me?" - and that is all that is considered - without looking at interactions at different scales - you have stasis - explosive instabilities - and a lot of the problems we have now.

I think you are your own "adversary."

"to cantabb" might become a verb - for a general pattern for messing up anything and everything.

"For a general pattern for messing up anything and everything" FOR YOU, may be !

(2 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense