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 - 06:54am Nov 4, 2003 EST (# 16448 of 16472)

lchic - 06:30am Nov 4, 2003 EST (# 16445 of 16446)

Cantabb - rides pillon on the soundwave of an echo.

Your shared paranoia.

but thread readers will ask

Readers have asked DIFFERENT questions. NOT interested in poster IDs, your+rshow's obsession.

Who are you? What's your name? Contact information?

Is that a prerequisite for posting on a public forum ? What I post is NOT enough ?

Since you and rshow are so obsessed with this, answer this yourself: Who are YOU ? What's YOUR name ? Contact information ?

Let's have it in your NEXT post. I know rshow has identified you, but .... ? !

Faceless - nameless opinions are weightless and worthless in real world terms.

Usual Nonsense. Expressed opinions don't have to have a name, degree or position attavhed. Opinions stand or fall, on their own merit; name adds nothing to its merit, weight or worth. Your and rshow's obsession is for both of you to share.

"ultimately TRUTH outs : TRUTH has to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong foundation": IF you take the "syrup" daily and know where to find the nearest "Truth Dispenser," that is !

rshow55 - 07:09am Nov 4, 2003 EST (# 16449 of 16472)
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.

Cantabb says: "Expressed opinions don't have to have a name, degree or position attavhed. Opinions stand or fall, on their own merit; name adds nothing to its merit, weight or worth.

That is false - and everybody knows it.

For human beings - quantitative questions - questions of how much weight to put on one thing or another - matter all the time. The question of "who is talking" is an essential one when ideas are weighted . And questions of HOW MUCH STATUS is involved, and how, are a big part of most decisions.

Meaningless generalities are worthless. But meaningful generalities are precious. And one generality that is underappreciated is that now - languages do a poor job of communicating issues of "how much" - and we need to do better - and know when there is no substitute for conversation - including some face-to-face conversation - which carries emotional and quantitative cues that are essential for human function.

I'm hoping that lchic and I can do some work that makes that less of a problem. Work that is actually effective.

For stable end games - workable stable arrangements - people and groups have to be workably clear on these key questions. Especially if win-win outcomes are to be possible.

Issues of how much enter into every one of the issues here:

How do people disagree (agree) about logical structure ? ( to judge what structures work - you need "how much" questions.)

How do people disagree (agree) about facts ? ( to judge facts in the real world, with real uncertainties, you need to answer "how much" questions. )

How do people disagree (agree) about questions of how much different things matter ?

How do people differ in their team identifications ? ( all human teams have particular sets of priorities - some of them very carefully calibrated - that can't be described well, these days, with only the printed word - without relying on much else. )

(23 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense