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 - 11:24am Jan 2, 2003 EST (# 7215 of 7216)
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.

almarst2002 1/2/03 11:18am

There is something I feel like mentioning. I've said these things in a briefing I gave almarst in March of last year, hoping that Putin would somehow get the information. It is set out in 340-367 http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7b085/383

especially 351-354 http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7b085/394

and most especially http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7b085/398
most especially http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7b085/398
most especially http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7b085/398
most especially http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7b085/398
which sets out a test that the Russians will never be able to pass in a totally beautiful way, but ought to consider hard, now. Some Chinese might consider analogous tests.

Perhaps I'm out of line to make the point - but feel that relationships are going less well than they could because some unchangeable differences of opinion and aesthetics are getting people to fight about things where resolution is impossible without one side exterminating or totally violating the other side on the point at issue. For reasons that are unchangeable, that trace back at least 800 years, Russians have a culture that is deeply mismatched to many other cultures - including the American.

To by orderly about something - you have to be disorderly in some other respects - and to be very orderly about something - messy in some or many other respects.

At human complexity levels, to be symmetric about something - you have to be assymmtric about some other things - and to be very symmetric about something - very assymmetric in some or many other respects.

At human complexity levels, to be harmonious in a specific, defined way - you have to be very complicted, and sometimes conflicted, about some other things - and if the standard of harmony in one defined way is extreme - very, very, very conflicted and complicated about very, very, very many things.

In a heirarchical logical system - the things that are stable and free alternate. The sequence of alternation in Russia and America is almost, but not quite, perfectly opposite. Which means that some basic disagreements - at the core of emotion and aesthetics, are unavoidable. Though, when it matters enough, these things can all be gracefully combed out by exception handling systems that are very tolerant in so respects and completely intolerant and rigid in some other ways.

rshow55 - 11:25am Jan 2, 2003 EST (# 7216 of 7216)
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 conveyed that information to the US government in 1971, and believe that it was useful for the purposes of the time. I'm afraid it may have been forgotten, or may be being used in muddled ways. Now, I believe it is important to remember it. I think if Putin is to get some of the key things he wants - he needs to have his responses and his indignations under better control than they are now - for very practical reasons. So do some Americans. We need a better Russian-American interface, at more levels, including deeper levels, than we have now.

There are some analogous things to say about relations both the Russians and we have with the Islamic world, though our problems are different in detail.

Here is something I feel absolutely sure of. People are feeling absolutely sure of their judgement in some key places where they have sign errors - and things are backwards.

It is dangerous. People need to be careful.

If the suggestion in http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7b085/398
were actually implemented - it might seem like a love fest. But the things "agreed about" would hide some very great disagreements. Each side is ugly in plenty of ways - and beautiful in plenty of others - but some of these disagreements are unchangably linked to fundamental aspects of Russianess and Americanness that can't and shouldn't change. For safety, I think people need to be clearer about these disagreements than they are - and it would be a lot of work to get the issues involved sorted out.

I'm afraid that people are making some fast moves, and feeling confident about them - when they are terribly wrong in some basic assumptions.

One assumption that is often wrong is that fast is better than slow.

We are, I believe, in circumstances where checking - from a number of angles - ought to be obligatory.

There's a saving grace. There are a lot of areas where "win-win" accomodations are available, if people are careful, and if they are willing to accept that some disagreements just aren't going to be resolved, and have to be accepted. People don't have to like each other in every way to live in peace, and cooperate well. Especially if there is enough communication, and the right amount of trust - neither too much nor too little.

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense