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 - 06:50pm Aug 10, 2002 EST (#3618 of 3637)

If the world changed so that the following little poem was a widely taught nursery rhyme, I believe that most of the most basic problems of the world would be sorted out - by the people involved - naturally and as a matter of course.

For the poem to be raised to such high status - people would have to recognize that lies, mistakes, and deceptions are MUCH more common than is commonly assumed -- maybe 20 times more common.

If that were seen, the need to check would be obvious - and we'd all live in a world that was more intelligent, both emotionally and logically.

It would also be clear that checking had to be expected as a matter of course -- done efficiently - clearly - and politely .

The first two line so the poem below are lchic's , and were set out after a lot of thinking about paradigm conflict:

Adults need secrets, lies and fictions
To live within their contradictions

..... But when things go wrong
..... And knock about

..... Folks get together
...... And work it out

When it matters enough - we need to "think about the unthinkable" - the possibility that we and others may have made mistakes, evaded uncomfortable things, done a little cheating, and come to, or caused others to come to, wrong conclusions.

If we did that - - we could fix a lot of things, and simplify a lot of muddles. Be more comfortable. And more likely to survive.

rshow55 - 06:52pm Aug 10, 2002 EST (#3619 of 3637)

Mazza , I asked "When I've criticised MD programs - can you tell me things, of a specific, technical nature, where you think I've gotten it wrong?" . . . and you ignored the question.

Mazza responded with what was very forceful at one level, but was also an evasion: "I disagree with your basic premise that missile defense cannot be made to work."

I believe that Mazza should be forced to respond to my question.

If not - where is closure? And how can we find right answers? Money, and survival, quite often depend on right answers. Right answers that are quite often impossible unless, when it matters enough - checking to closure is forced.

rshow55 - 06:54pm Aug 10, 2002 EST (#3620 of 3637)

The matter of getting a better handle on ideas - ideas connected to money and big consequences -- is abstract at one level -- but as practical as can be at another.

West is beset by phantom menace ... One factor in the current downturn is the emergence of assets which accountants don't know how to value George Hodgson Saturday July 20, 2002 http://www.guardian.co.uk/recession/story/0,7369,758820,00.html

"The linking theme of most of the companies hitting the headlines for the wrong reasons this spring and summer is that a huge slice of their balance sheet were invested in intangible assets. Many of our major companies now have almost "virtual" balance sheets, with the majority of the "assets" of the company being accounted for by brand values, intellectual property and other forms of what the accountants call "intangibles".

. . . .

"In recent months, companies on both sides of the Atlantic have vied for the crown of the "worst corporate results in history". All were being forced to recognise that their intangible assets were worth only a fraction of what they thought they were worth a couple of years ago. In some instances that wiped billions off company valuations.

"There are two fundamental problems for regulators and investors. The first is that intangible assets are now far more important for many companies than traditional ones such as plant and equipment. This is inevitable as western economies move away from manufacturing.

"The second is that managements, auditors, bankers and investors are lousy at valuing these intangible assets. In many cases, consensus views on how much assets are worth have more than halved in 24 months. That suggests that no one really knows.

"The implications are profound and still working their way through the real economy and financial markets. One of the reasons the dollar is sliding is that, if the heavy US corporate investment in intangibles has been misplaced, estimates of trend US economic growth of 3.5% plus, way above Europe's 2-2.5%, look far too high.

"Moreover, as the asset side of a company's balance sheet evaporates as intangibles are written off, bankers worry. This is forcing more and more businesses into dismemberment.

"Volatility

"Perhaps the real issue, however, is that the economy is becoming more and more reliant on assets that, by definition, have no measurable physical existence and whose value is often a matter of opinion. This must push up the risks.

- - - - - -

We need to check what can actually be checked. A lot can be. And because the consequences are so important (not only in money, but in matters of life and death) that checking has to have the weight of public opionion behind it.

There's more public opinion standing for checking than there used to be.

(17 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense