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 - 02:42pm Aug 22, 2002 EST (# 3899 of 3904)

What I wrote above , on May 24 20001, was true. But there's seldom time or reason to write the whole truth, and some other details about my background were written on this MD thread later, on June 2001. These details have been reposted on the Guardian.

http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/289 ... http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/290
http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/291 ... http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/292
http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/293 ... http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/294
http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/295 ...

When things are complicated, truth is our only hope: http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/296

At Cornell University - with that patent and math background -- I got involved with classified military research -- and started doing serious military work in my first full year at college. Got an extensive but unconventional education, and have had some difficulties, many discussed on this thread, since that time.

rshow55 - 02:45pm Aug 22, 2002 EST (# 3900 of 3904)

Can we do a better job of finding truth? Yes.

And the odds of that http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/11/magazine/11COINCIDENCE.html are much better than we've often assumed - if we do things right.

Though the process is fragile. For powerful statistical reasons. When you're trying to get something straight, the power to muddle is the power to destroy. Something right wing posters know.

Things the whole world should know. The statistics of "reasoning starting from random" casts a great deal of light on what we can hope to do - and what we have to fear. Bill Casey would have been fascinated. I think he would have been proud, too. He was looking for answers that were usable, and simple.

rshow55 - 02:51pm Aug 22, 2002 EST (# 3901 of 3904)

El Chumbo asked an interesting question in a broadly philosophical Guardian thread God is the Projection of Mans Unrealised Potential - Discuss - - a question that may have occurred to others, as well:

ElChumbo - 11:10am Aug 19, 2002 BST (#1471 http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7b2bd/1635 rshowalter: Would you mind satisfying my idle curiousity? What are you actually doing with the NewYorkTimes Missile Defence thread?

my response started:

" I'm trying to keep some promises, fulfill myself, and astonish and please the ghosts of C.P. Snow, Edison, Roosevelt, Bill Casey, Clerk Maxwell, my old partner Steve Kline, and some others. That's not a good answer - but let me post some stuff here - post on some other threads that I value and don't want to expire - and try to get back to you.

"Working with lchic , I'm trying to break the code of the brain - of human logic - in the ways that would be useful and pleasing to a kindergarten teacher, and early grades teacher, a high school teacher, kids, and high-flown academics, including Bertrand Russell. We're also sorting out some key problems of peacemaking.

"Have ambitions to sort some things out that would make a lot of people more capable and comfortable. Some days, including some days lately, it has seemed to me that the efforts are making headway - and that it is reasonable to hope for solid successes.

(3 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense