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 - 04:04pm Aug 7, 2002 EST (#3551 of 3580)

mazza9 8/7/02 2:04pm . . . you have a right to your opinion -- as we all do -- though we all have some obligation to look at evidence -- and you aren't rejecting that.

I'm moving a little slowly, worrying some about doing things stably.

Nobody wants stasis. But instability can be a nightmare, too.

Markets are uncomfortable and harmfully unstable right now. Political relationships, too often, look unstable. Military balances and relationships are too unstable.

I think some things can be sorted out -- need to be sorted out - - and that good results, on some of the things involved, can only be done if some care is taken so that things come to workable convergence stably. Ending in a situation that is predictable, comfortable, desireable.

Sometimes, the best solution, at a specific concentrated point, is something that goes " bang." Often not.

A while ago I asked for a chance to give a presentation on a military matter, and wrote this:

"Some explosive instabilities need to be avoided by the people who must make and maintain . . . relevant agreements. The system crafted needs to be workable for what it has to do, have feedback, damping, and dither in the right spots with the right magnitudes. The things that need to be checkable should be. "

Without feedback, damping, and dither in the right spots with the right magnitudes -- a lot of things are unstable - even when those things "look good," "make sense" and there is "good will on all sides."

People need to base their decisions on correct facts, if those decisions matter. Not only right about qualitative questions - "what" questions - - but also right about quantitative questions - questions of "how much" - including questions of proportion.

Even when facts are right, and in proportion - the decision making "machine" involved has to be stable, too - - or terrible things can still happen.

I wish I was more confident about the Bush administrations decisions about facts. And I hope they know more than I think they know about stability conditions, as well.

Seems to me that we need more stability than we've got, along with some better decisions. A number of other countries, Iraq included, need better stability and better decisions, too.

I'm trying to figure out how to handle some of my personal problems stably, as well.

lchic - 04:27pm Aug 7, 2002 EST (#3552 of 3580)

Richard Dawkins, an Oxford science don, suggested Mr Bush was just as much of a danger to world peace as Saddam Hussein, adding: "It would be a tragedy if Tony Blair were to be brought down through playing poodle to this unelected and deeply stupid little oil-spiv."

^{http://politics.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,9174,770408,00.html}

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Michelle Ciarrocca William Hartung

^{http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=Michelle+Ciarrocca++William+Hartung+2002&btnG=Google+Search}

mazza9 - 04:31pm Aug 7, 2002 EST (#3553 of 3580)
"Quae cum ita sunt" Caesar's Gallic Commentaries

Robert:

I don't disagree. The facts that are available to the Administration are far more detailed than we could ever hope to be privy to. This is why we must trust our representatives to act in a responsible fashion. This doesn't always happen and that's what historians are for.

As you watch the machinations of ex president Clinton and his administration personnel regarding the "Anti Al Quida" plan which was developed in April of 2000 and supposedly communicated to the Bush transition team you can see the dynamic of what are facts and how can they be checked. Question. If this plan was developed in April of 2000 why was there no response to the USS Cole attack? Who knows? When did they know? Who died unecessarily? These are all important questions that bring our government into question.

When we talk of missile defense, the same questions should be acted upon. DOW closed up 180!

LouMazza

mazza9 - 04:37pm Aug 7, 2002 EST (#3554 of 3580)
"Quae cum ita sunt" Caesar's Gallic Commentaries

lchic:

"Richard Dawkins, an Oxford science don, suggested Mr Bush was just as much of a danger to world peace as Saddam Hussein,"

Remember, all statements of this type should be prefaced with the phrase, "It is the opinion of...". He is an Oxford science don, (what is that, some sort of MAFIA title?) which means actually very little to me. All to often, the drapery that is laid on one's shoulders may or may not have any relevance to the statement made.

It would be like me stating. "Lou Mazza an MBA in Finance believes that lchic is a clear and present danger to world peace.

rshow55 - 05:15pm Aug 7, 2002 EST (#3555 of 3580)

Just like that, at the level of logical structure, considering nothing more.

But there is a LOT more that has to be considered.

Anyone can SAY anything. ANYTHING, no matter how wrong or pernicious, can be expressed in clear english and can, in a certain sense "sound good."

But how does it FIT ?

Here's something by people who have carefully looked at a lot of facts:

'Wilson's Ghost: Reducing the Risk of Conflict, Killing, and Catastrophe in the 21st Century' by ROBERT S. McNAMARA and JAMES G. BLIGHT http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/29/books/chapters/29-1stmcnam.html

MD1026-1034 rshow55 4/3/02 12:01pm

(25 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense