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.

manjumicha2001 - 06:11pm Jun 17, 2002 EST (#2607 of 2618)

rshow

Keep us posted....I am very much innterested in your getting completely unshackled...

rshow55 - 08:51pm Jun 17, 2002 EST (#2608 of 2618)

The difference between

making a stable, resilient peace based on mutual, balanced patterns of pluses and minuses, with understanding

or

an uncontrolled fight with undesirable, messy or unpredictable end points

is sometimes a matter of clarity and pacing. If done slowly, people involved learn "workable rules" -- if done too quickly - somebody gets blindsided, or very badly scared, and there is uncontrolled or undesirable conflict. Good negotiating lawyers know about the pacings needed - and sometimes they achieve real beauty, in situations that could otherwise be ugly.

There are points where people need a little time to think, and time to feel. Right now I'm being careful, and think perhaps some other people are, as well.

I have hopes, just now, of being completely unshackled and having it happen in a way that is in the national interest and capable of passing the test of community approval with the community I have most in mind the somewhat elitist, but down-to-earth community of people inclined to read the NYT.

I'm hoping all concerned can pass those tests.

Maybe too much to hope for, but just now, in addition to fears and worries, I have some hopes.

I'm spending a lot of time running through a set of checklists. Just "thought problems," but worth thinking about, it seems to me. I've been in a mess, and have put some other people in messy circumstances as well, sometimes knowingly, sometimes inadvertently. Who could I apologize to, so that the apology would work in practical human terms, and how, in detail, could I do it? I can ask that in a longish list of cases. Not that I'll have a chance to do so, of course - - , and not that it would be worth doing so -- though sometimes I'd like to.

But I'm hoping for graceful closure. With everyone understanding what happened, and "reading from the same page," whatever their feelings happen to be. So they can make workable, comfortable decisions in future interactions. So people can move on with understanding. The practical accomodations I know of achieve that.

rshow55 - 08:53pm Jun 17, 2002 EST (#2609 of 2618)

Simply. Without excess, but with enough detail to do what they have to do.

lchic - 05:46am Jun 18, 2002 EST (#2610 of 2618)

TT

rshow55 - 12:29pm Jun 18, 2002 EST (#2611 of 2618)

Am I "totally unshackled" or "totally encircled" ?

Operationally, they are opposite states - different in sign - totally free versus totally unfree.

Just now, I can't tell which state I'm in, and have some reason to believe either of the two cases.

I have to check.

In doing so, I would like to explain some things, carefully, that I believe many people do not know, and ought to -- including even the wise and experienced people who staff the New York Times.

Could I "get to" Mr Ted Turner - - for conversation, after reasonable people made reasonable exceptions?

Could I "get to" people involved in the Crusader project - - - for conversation, after reasonable people made reasonable exceptions to reasonable barriers to my access?

Could I "get to" _ _ _ _ _ _ - - for conversation, after reasonable people made reasonable exceptions?

There are many questions of that sort. I have to check on some things, as they apply to me, and to some degree as they apply to other people, as well.

I don't think enough people understand how unfree, and how paralyzed, America has become in some ways - free and wonderful as it is in some other ways.

I'm trying to figure out how to do an honest, honorable, not-too-invasive, and effective check. I have some hopes.

rshow55 - 12:30pm Jun 18, 2002 EST (#2612 of 2618)

Some past communications on this thread, and with people of the NYT, are relevant. And not, it seems to me, too embarrassing.

There's a lot of criticism of CIA, FBI, and other security organizations, these days - and some of it, I believe, is justified. But it seems to me that some reasons aren't being understood, and some unfair conclusions are being drawn along with the fair ones. Sometimes, relationships were set up in the past, perfectly for a purpose. Then they were used a while, and the relationships became perfectly wrong for that same purpose. There was a switching of signs. It is a kind of logical disease of bureaucratic organizations. Looking at it, moral indignation may help on occassion, but understanding might help more.

There has to be exception handling for organizations to work well. Much too often, these days, there isn't any reasonable exception handling at all, in areas where it is very much needed if the organizations are to function as they are supposed to.

MD1672 rshow55 4/22/02 4:47pm .... "Whenever there are problems with reliability of function (and these are very important) -- the most powerful way to increase the efficiency of a society is to reduce misinformation to increase reliability.

MD1674 rshow55 4/22/02 7:32pm

(6 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense