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 - 08:31am Dec 24, 2002 EST (# 6987 of 6992)
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.

When these principles are thought about - every so often, some of the details that people need to tend to, to make ideals actually work - may occur, where they wouldn't if people weren't reminded.

I believe that if a lot of people in the Bush administration, and elsewhere, read Kline's book - things might go better.

They's also notice how useful the far better writing skills of lunarchick and many other good writers are.

In 1997, Steve and I wrote about what we thought the NYT Science Forums were good for:
http://www.mrshowalter.net/whytimes2

When people have to deal with details - including the details that are needed to really work out the golden rule - they need to understand enough about what they're doing to come up with answers that are not only well intentioned, but can work. http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md01000s/DetailNGR.htm

Details on Missile Defense matter a lot, too - and to get them explained, and taken to closure - will take more organization than this unaided thread can provide with my unaided efforts.

So do many other details about US political and military policy, many discussed carefully and extensively by almarst.

lunarchick - 11:39am Dec 24, 2002 EST (# 6988 of 6992)

Irvin D. Yalom

""Sometimes I fear the future because of the dangers that irrational belief creates for our species. It is supernatural belief, not absence of belief that may destroy us. We need only look to the past to trace out the huge swaths of destruction that unyielding conviction has caused. Or look to contemporary conflicts in the Mideast or the Indian subcontinent where conflicting and unyielding fundamentalist belief systems threaten millions. I love Nietzsche’s aphorism that it is not the courage of one’s convictions that matters but the courage to change one’s convictions.

rshow55 - 12:02pm Dec 24, 2002 EST (# 6989 of 6992)
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.

Yalom's Dictum: (from Kline, above)

. There is a strong correlation between the hardness of the variables and the triviality of the problem in my field. (Yalom's field is psychiatry)

When people are not clear and agreed about definitions - on issues where the people involved care, and have reason to care - that means there is important work to do - good reason for intellectual effort, care, and focusing.

Irrational beliefs are dangerous - and in order to sort them out - to contact them - what is "believed" needs to be focused and defined.

When people are fighting, or on the verge of fighting - it is especially important to see what the fights are about. When that is clear - there is new hope.

I think the Science Times today has two magnificent articles!

lunarchick - 12:15pm Dec 24, 2002 EST (# 6990 of 6992)

One notices an acknowledgement from Kline regarding input from Showalter regarding the above book, Chapters 3-11 ....

One would think it is hard to initially laydown the essence of a new academic area ...

lunarchick - 12:18pm Dec 24, 2002 EST (# 6991 of 6992)

Nuclear Contradictions IR

^{http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?50@@.3ba79985/0}

(1 following message)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense