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 - 04:34pm Sep 19, 2002 EST (# 4427 of 4427)
Can we do a better job of finding truth? YES. Click "rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have done and worked for on this thread.

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

Instability can be a nightmare.

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."

The points are yet more important when things do not look good , when they do not make sense ; and when good will on all sides is plainly lacking.

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.

It seems to me that the United States Congress and the United Nations have time to carefully judge what they do, what they agree to, and what they check. I believe that they should take that time.

People with money ought to give thought to the fact that wrong answers can cost them money . Most of us, most of the time, have a big stake in honest conduct, and correct facts and logic. There are very good reasons to check. G.W. Bush spent far too much time on the Enron plane, and places much too much trust is Assistant Secretary White for us to mistake him for an angel.

The 'missile defense" boondoggle, where the frauds are so technically clear, might be a good place to do some exemplary checking - and there are many other places, as well.

Issues of psychological warfare ought to be considered. We're dealing with patterns of deception here.

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense