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 - 09:10pm Aug 17, 2002 EST (# 3781 of 3787)

People should be told things that they can see for themselves - and check for themselves. That are true and important -- and that they can see are true and important.

With the internet, we now have new possibilities to say "look, see for yourself" .

rshow55 - 09:12pm Aug 17, 2002 EST (# 3782 of 3787)

3736 rshow55 8/16/02 8:52am . . . includes this:

" It takes a lot of text for focusing. But the product of the focusing - when it works best - is simple ideas, sharply condensed, that are powerful, clear, and beautifully fit to purpose. Things that everybody involved with an issue should know - in a form that everybody can easily learn. Things that, once they are known, make solutions impossible before possible, routine, and even effortless."

In 3737 rshow55 8/16/02 8:52am to 3740 rshow55 8/16/02 8:59am I set out patterns that I think are important examples of such simple, important ideas. Perhaps the most important one ought to be "obvious" -- and it is an idea that I believe needs to be much more appreciated than it is.

" everybody has a stake in right answers on questions of fact that they have to use as assumptions for what they say and do. "

Hard to find anything more basic than that. And yet, the world has BIG problems at exactly that level. Fact that should be checked are not. The question "is this important enough to check" isn't asked often or carefully enough.

rshow55 - 09:16pm Aug 17, 2002 EST (# 3783 of 3787)

Checking on some of the most important things can be hard.

To sort things out from random, it takes a lot of text. A big difficulty is that, for the most basic things - it can take an enormous amount of text, or sometimes an impossible amount of text - - unless work is done to see that focusing proceeds.

We can do much better than we've done - and be safer and more comfortable - if we learn how to focus better. We need to ask "what are the odds of that?" and ask the question carefully for two practical reasons. To eliminate coincidences. And to clarify relations that are consistent and trustworthy.

The "fundamental axiom of manufacturing engineering" is that "standard procedures, applied to standard conditions, yield standard results." When relationships are causal, patterns persist.

When relationships are coincidental, and one looks at a string of like cases, the percieved relationship fades away.

With checking, carefully done, and done enough times - the difference between the real and the coincidental become clear. Real relationships can be found, and they are precious. Falsehoods can be stripped away - and hopeless muddles can give way to useful understanding.

Missile defense would be a very good place to demonstrate how this works. MD1075-1076 rshow55 4/4/02 1:20pm . It is important in itself. It connects to larger issues of complex cooperation, and of peace. And it is about the right size to work out the problems that are ripe for solution now.

The Cold War should be understood, and its effects ended. To do it, some facts have to be focused to clarity - and some relationships, as well. That should be practical, and not even expensive, with tools now available.

Given courage.

rshow55 - 09:43pm Aug 17, 2002 EST (# 3784 of 3787)

Trillion dollar errors and grave risks and injustices ought to be avoided.

They can be.

Real patterns and coincidences can "look the same" - but with checking - you can tell the difference. Beyond a reasonable doubt.

lchic - 03:19am Aug 18, 2002 EST (# 3785 of 3787)

http://www.observer.co.uk/international/

(2 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense