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 - 05:57pm Nov 4, 2002 EST (# 5455 of 5458)
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.

The Russians, for decades, have been insisting in nuclear arms talks on a clear statement of historical facts. Americans have resisted. The Russians have been right on this matter. To go on, one needs the truth. Anything else is too likely to mislead in an unpredictable future, where people must act and cooperate on the basis of what they believe.

A sense of odds, of the reasons why truth is needed, is partly a technical matter. Let me digress, and say a few things about "complexity" as Kline defined it -- a sense, I feel, that gives TECHNICAL reasons why lies are damaging not only morally, but practically, too.

rshowalter - 06:02pm Mar 17, 2001 EST (#1131

In Chapter 4, p 63, Kline writes this:

" In very complex systems, such as sociotechnical systems, we have no theory of entire systems, and must therefore create, operate, and improve such systems via feedback: that is, repeated cycles of human observations plus trials of envisioned improvements in the real systems. In such very complex systems, data from a wide variety of cases therefore becomes the primary basis for understanding and judgements . . . "

The truth is known, in such a circumstance, to be much more safe, and much more advantageous, than lies or wrong ideas. And so checking for correctness is very practical, and lies, even very well intentioned or understandable ones, can be very damaging.

rshowalter - 06:10pm Mar 17, 2001 EST (#1132

Steve means something pretty simple when he speaks of his Index of complexity -- it is, for all the systems we looked at (and I put hundreds of hours into this part of Steve's work) C, the complexity number is constrained as follows:

V + P + L < C < V times P times L

where

V is the number of independent variables

P is the number of independent parameters needed to distinguish the system from other systems of the same class

L is the number of feedback loops both within the system and connecting the system to its surroundings.

Human social systems, even simple ones, have C values in the billions. In such very complex systems, we must create, operate, and improve via feedback: that is, repeated cycles of human observations plus trials of envisioned improvements in the real systems."

And so the truth is crucial for function.

rshow55 - 06:02pm Nov 4, 2002 EST (# 5456 of 5458)
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.

We need solutions that fit the problems they are supposed to solve.

An absolute requirement is that the solution fit the complexity of the problem.

Usually, that means that the solution needs to have a complexity - in detail - comparable to the system it interacts with - or - a very well detailed understanding of the system involved.

It takes a lot of talking.

- -

Current patterns, which cut off communication when there are disagreements - are guaranteed to produce failure in such cases.

- -

Just because the North Koreans are dangerous, and, from our point of view, unstable -- we need to talk to them - of have people we can deal with talk to them.

And, for starters, the subject matter has to be of enough complexity that it is comparable to the problems we have to solve.

If the level of complexity is intractable for any problem - - we have no solution for especially difficult or important problems.

Is that so hard?

mazza9 - 06:14pm Nov 4, 2002 EST (# 5457 of 5458)
"Quae cum ita sunt" Caesar's Gallic Commentaries

Oh I get it! Missile like projectile! Idiotic analogy. So this is you thoughtful analysis of decoys, shiny reflective coatings on ICBMs, (kinda like a condom), and missile defense.

Calling Doctor Freud! Calling Doctor Freud!

(1 following message)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense