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 - 09:08am Jan 9, 2003 EST (# 7507 of 7532)
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.

commondata 1/9/03 8:58am - - - is very useful - and I think it is beautiful in spots - and so ugly and misshappen in other ways that I can barely believe it.

Very useful.

I'd like to make a "no fault" point.

George W. Bush is a "child of nature".

He lives in a context, and has made adaptations. He works very hard, makes mistakes - is as ugly as he is, in the ways he is ugly - and sometimes, in some ways, he works very well.

So are we all. So do we all.

We need better formality and better symmetry to get better performance from the exception handling systems that we have. We need to use what's good, and there is plenty of it. But in spots there need to be some changes, too. They have to design-evolve together - in order in some ways - in no particular order in others - and we can do a lot better than we're doing.

Though I don't know how exactly, except I think I do, sometimes.

I think I know a lot that could be done better, generally, though maybe not.

rshow55 - 09:13am Jan 9, 2003 EST (# 7508 of 7532)
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.

"Can you "explain" how arguments from design compliment evolution and shed light on the world around us?"

Sure. Here's a start ( this will take a while) - anyone in his or her senses who raises children knows you need to teach a sense of RIGHT and WRONG - and at some levels they have to be magestic and obligatory from the child's point of view. Otherwise you have a mess.

Anyone in his senses, I think - would need an argument from design in the step by step process of raising children - at some levels, at least. All evolution, all the time - might concievably work - but there are awkwardnesses - some of them serious - when you are raising children - or thinking generally, with incomplete information - and are in a hurry.

One very good thing with arguments of design is they much more naturally accomodate matters of aesthetics which are vitally important.

almarst2002 - 09:22am Jan 9, 2003 EST (# 7509 of 7532)

The US, Europe and their Nato alliance are floundering in their nuclear policy, apparently willing to use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear assault and relying on a magic umbrella of missile defence to defend themselves. - http://www.guardian.co.uk/nuclear/article/0,2763,871128,00.html

rshow55 - 09:23am Jan 9, 2003 EST (# 7510 of 7532)
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.

All the same, I think kids and families might both work better if this rhyme was taught routinely, at about the age of four:

Adults need secrets, lies, and fictions
To live within their contradictions

You need doubt , too.

An argument from design NEEDS an evolutionary argument to work well. Otherwise there are distortions - some of them very awkward.

The converse is also true.

rshow55 - 09:24am Jan 9, 2003 EST (# 7511 of 7532)
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 1/9/03 9:22am - - a terribly ugly, dangerous, stupid "compromise"

(21 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense