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 - 10:17am Dec 15, 2002 EST (# 6649 of 6655)
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 was in error in rshow55 12/15/02 9:24am -- the post by gisterme I referred to has not been deleted.

Had I been able to delete and redo the last two postings to reflect that, I would have done so. I think a lot of people involved with the issues of war and peace are running stressed enough that they can make mistakes. I just made one.

Like a lot of other people, I'm worried. In rshow55 11/21/02 9:06am and some other places, I've posted this:

Stakes are high - risks are real - but there is much to be gained - and we're in a situation where we have to find better solutions to some of the messes in the world now. Even if there have to be fights - about ideas if people are sensible.
MD4000 rshow55 8/27/02 2:51pm
MD6000 rshow55 11/20/02 7:56pm

When things are complicated enough, there simply is no choice but to worry about right answers in a stark, logical sense - and about balances - including questions of "how much?". The alternatives are just to ugly - so there is work to be done, care to be taken, and responsibilities that cannot be escaped.

We need to make adjustments, step by step, from where we are - that actually work in practical human terms.

I once sent a postcard, that included 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."

" . . . . Unless we get some things in better balance - costs in money, blood, and trouble will be much larger than necessary."

The test of the agreements (and actions) is how they work in practice, not just on paper. We're making that kind of transition - and if there are more agreements that need to be understood and worked out - we better make them.

. .

It seems to me that we have enough resources and enough time - but plenty to be worried about.

There are times when sharp, clear action - the right action - is just what's needed. We may be getting close to the need for such action. But so far as I can tell, nobody involved is rested, clear, and sure. I've been hesitating - worried about making mistakes - and when I did post - I just made a big mistake. Other people could make mistakes, too.

Maybe I made a big mistake here, where I predicted that 2002 would go down in history as a triump of diplomacy.
5441-2 rshow55 11/1/02 12:23pm . . . even now, I'm not sure. Maybe things could go well. People are paying attention.

almarst2002 - 10:57am Dec 15, 2002 EST (# 6650 of 6655)

Anti-war protest in Tunisia banned, says opposition - http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L13274917

almarst2002 - 10:59am Dec 15, 2002 EST (# 6651 of 6655)

Hi-tech arms 'would finish war in a week' - http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=361736

(4 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense