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 - 10:11pm Nov 3, 2003 EST (# 16423 of 16444)
ultimately TRUTH outs : TRUTH has to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong foundation

ON focus ... Showalter believes that were the maths cleaned up ...

lchic - 10:14pm Nov 3, 2003 EST (# 16424 of 16444)
ultimately TRUTH outs : TRUTH has to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong foundation

On groups ... Cantabb count yourself as a latecomer-regular with a dispostion for the irregular

rshow55 - 10:17pm Nov 3, 2003 EST (# 16425 of 16444)
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.

Getting the math cleaned up looks possible - it is, from where we stand, mostly a negotiating problem. Mistakes that are 350 years old aren't anybody's fault - and the social systems of math, science, and engineering need to be preserved. Maybe Steve and I have been wrong, after all. We'll see. The work will be MUCH more understandable because of the help and inspriration of Lchic .

- - -

12079

In 1952, when General of the Army Dwight David Eisenhower ran for president (he hadn't cared much whether he ran as a Democrat or a Republican) he had clear objectives.

He wanted to combine the high achievements in administration and technocratic management that the US had up and running - with democracy and American ideals - in the service of a common good the country agreed on.

He wanted to diffuse the high achievements in administration and technocratic management that the US had up and running, in the service of world welfare, world prosperity, and world peace, and to meet the competition of totalitarian systems.

Eisenhower had good reasons to think these objectives reasonable ones - and good reasons to believe that he was the best man available, by a large margin, to achieve them. There probably never was a man with wider, more intense, or more successful experience in administration and technocratic management of large systems than D.D. Eisenhower. Neither his selection nor his successes had happened by accident.

Eisenhower's presidency was a very frustrating one, though he achieved a lot. The main sources of frustration, and deep concern for the country that he had that I heard about were I technical. They motivated me very thoroughly. Eisenhower didn't see how the world was going to go decently unless some problems that had stumped him were solved. He wasn't even sure that mankind would survive.

12080

The Cornell 6-Year Ph.D. Program was set up at the request of Dwight D. Eisenhower - McGeorge Bundy and Milton Eisenhower were involved too - and of course Cornell and the Ford Foundation, which provided the funding, were involved. So far as I can tell, very few people knew what the program was for - or how the idea originated and gained force as quickly as it did. I don't believe that was an accident.

I was selected to work on problems that former President Eisenhower felt, and others felt, were of essential national interest - and difficult.

D.D. Eisenhower had a lot to do with my undergraduate education, such as it was. In some ways it was a superb education - an expensive education - an exciting education. But not conventional.

People were stumped on some key things - some of a mathematical nature - it made sense to "find a smart kid" - an effort was made (according to high administrative and technocratic standards - working through elites) and I was selected - perhaps as the best in a disappointing litter. Maybe it was just that they faced a hard choice - they had to find a kid able to have a chance of doing the work - yet stupid enough to take the assignment. Anyway, I worked hard, and kept faith.

It is my professional judgement, which is obviously fallible - that I've made great headway, with much help from other people, on solving the problems that Eisenhower and his top staffers felt were their showstoppers.

Progress made working supervised, working with Steve Kline as a partner, and working with lchic as a partner. I think the biggest and toughest have come into focus working with lchic .

I think some of the things we've done on this thread offer some evidence of the quality of our work.

- - -

It is time to get past "evidence" and get the work done. Now I have a better chance than before. Though some may dispute what I say - I can write an honest resume . And find ways to work with lchic . For score, this time. I'm hopeful. And I appreciate the New York Times.

bluestar23 - 10:47pm Nov 3, 2003 EST (# 16426 of 16444)

Get past "evidence" ... because there isn't any; for anything Showalter says...so he bows out, having explained Nothing and proved Nothing....

And on to the next thread, where he'll start by explaining the glorious "work" of this thread.....and repeating it all over again...

(18 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense