[F] 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.

Earliest Messages Previous Messages Recent Messages Outline (2161 previous messages)

rshow55 - 12:58pm May 11, 2002 EST (#2162 of 2169) Delete Message

I say here that I believe that if Bill Casey had a chance to see what has happened, he'd agree - very strongly -- and approve of what I have set out on this thread, and on the Guardian.

Based on what I know, I think Casey might have especially enjoyed and appreciated the work on paradigm conflict that Dawn Riley and I have done MD101 rshow55 3/2/02 5:20pm ... MD 115 rshow55 3/2/02 6:33pm
MD116 rshow55 3/2/02 6:34pm - -

Had I known the ideas set out there, when I was running AEA, much would have gone better. Had Casey known those things, he could have done better.

If people understood how easily paradigm conflicts occur, and how they can be resolved when it is worth doing - - the world would be a better, safer place.

So God's Really in the Details? by Emily Eakin ... was a step in that direction - because it explained probability judgements well - and the fact that ideas can be "reasonable" - and convincing -- and yet not necessarily be right based on the argument alone.

When it matters enough, for a practical purpose - people can check things - and resolve issues worth resolving. (Clergymen, including my grandfather, have been clear about that for many generations. Sometimes faith is indispensible. But sometimes, on practical things, faith is simply negligence. There needs to be an obligation to check - and check competently, when it matters enough. )

lchic - 05:18pm May 11, 2002 EST (#2163 of 2169)

'Checking' is integral to any 'Quality' process. WRT Nukes if there's a widespread assumption that checking has not been a part of the process - Quality failure - then is cause for worry from the general population - worldwide.

rshow55 - 06:22pm May 11, 2002 EST (#2164 of 2169) Delete Message

I wonder what an insurance company would say about the risks being accepted?

lchic - 06:34pm May 11, 2002 EST (#2165 of 2169)

Ask the question

"Which insurance companies are covering for it?"

Answer would most probably be NONE ..

WAR (warlike act of man)


GI: will name company-names if there is cover! Don't hold your breath.

More Messages Recent Messages (4 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Email to Sysop  Your Preferences

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  / Missile Defense

Home | Site Index | Site Search | Forums | Archives | Shopping

News | Business | International | National | New York Region | NYT Front Page | Obituaries | Politics | Quick News | Sports | Science | Technology/Internet | Weather
Editorial | Op-Ed

Features | Arts | Automobiles | Books | Cartoons | Crossword | Games | Job Market | Living | Magazine | Real Estate | Travel | Week in Review

Help/Feedback | Classifieds | Services | New York Today

Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company