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 - 02:41pm Nov 25, 2002 EST (# 6292 of 6294)
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.

Steve Kline's Index of complexity, C falls within these limits:

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

. . http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7b085/385 . . C isn't a fancy construct - but if a staff doesn't have some notion of the complexity of the situations they are dealing with they need to do the work necessary find out. Otherwise, it is overwhelming odds that they'll make bad decisions. Rather than "fly blind" they have a duty to do the work necessary to see their problems, as they are, well enough to do what they are entrusted to do.

The "rate of return," r , of an expenditure of resources that can be judged in enough isoltation for a decision is

r = [ln( aP/c)]/t

In words, the effective compounded rate of return (compound interest) is the natural logarithm of the risk discounted payoff-to-cost ratio divided by the time between putting out the expenditure C , and getting the payoff P . r isn't a fancy construct, either. But if a staff doesn't have some notion of what a , P , c and t are, as decent lumped estimates -- they need to do the work necessary find out. Fancier constructs might be better - but the lumped standard is a minimal one if "doing the best you can" is to mean anything at all. Without enough clarity to know what a fair guess at an "effective return" might be, it is overwhelming odds that staffed organizations and leaders will make bad decisions. Rather than "fly blind" they have a duty to do the work necessary to see their problems, as they are, well enough to do what they are entrusted to do. http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7b085/393

Estimates on these things that make sense in specific cases can be explained. If necessary, explained in public. If the judgements involved can't stand the light of day - people involved need to have the honesty - and do the work - to come up with better judgements.

rshow55 - 02:43pm Nov 25, 2002 EST (# 6293 of 6294)
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 world is so complicated, and so connected, that options that people can really take sort out together as packages, as assemblies - where decisions are often linked together.

When people understand enough about the choices before them to have any chance of making good choices - they can figure out how these linkages happen to be arranged. If they do the work. If they do the work - they can do the best they can . Very, very often, that's pretty good - because reasonable answers converge if people keep at it - and check things.

rshow55 - 02:44pm Nov 25, 2002 EST (# 6294 of 6294)
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.

A lot of intelligent people, working in teams, are doing a lot of work. Along with some screw-ups, some good things are happening - and maybe enough for some real progress. I've been heartened by a lot of the work done by the people involved at the UN Security Council and other UN agencies - work done by NATO countries - and some pretty sensible work that seems to be going on in Iraq. Mixed with some muddle, and some passionate stupidity, some sensible things seem to be going on about the Korean mess.

The more dangerous things are - the more important clarity is. Once situations are clear enough - it is often possible for intelligent choices to be made. If people are muddled - deceptive - and self-deceptive - there may be no hope at all - where with clarity - choices may occur to people. Often choices a lot better than anybody could have imagined - before taking the trouble to get clear. 6246 rshow55 11/24/02 6:42pm

It seems to me that there's a lot to hope for, as well as a lot to fear.

I deeply appreciate the chance to post here.

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense