New York Times Readers Opinions
The New York Times

Home
Job Market
Real Estate
Automobiles
News
International
National
Washington
Business
Technology
Science
Health
Sports
New York Region
Education
Weather
Obituaries
NYT Front Page
Corrections
Opinion
Editorials/Op-Ed
Readers' Opinions


Features
Arts
Books
Movies
Travel
Dining & Wine
Home & Garden
Fashion & Style
Crossword/Games
Cartoons
Magazine
Week in Review
Multimedia
College
Learning Network
Services
Archive
Classifieds
Book a Trip
Personals
Theater Tickets
Premium Products
NYT Store
NYT Mobile
E-Cards & More
About NYTDigital
Jobs at NYTDigital
Online Media Kit
Our Advertisers
Member_Center
Your Profile
E-Mail Preferences
News Tracker
Premium Account
Site Help
Privacy Policy
Newspaper
Home Delivery
Customer Service
Electronic Edition
Media Kit
Community Affairs
Text Version
TipsGo to Advanced Search
Search Options divide
go to Member Center Log Out
  

 [F] 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.


Earliest Messages Previous Messages Recent Messages Outline (7879 previous messages)

rshow55 - 02:59pm Jan 21, 2003 EST (# 7880 of 7899) Delete Message
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.

Anybody who wants to go to "end game" without a good many cycles, from where we are - knows more than I do.

Casey had a penchant for "elegant" asymptotic solutions - one shot to a completion - not enough thought about adjustments, and end games - and though we talked about it - I never could get him to see that, if you take a "right" action - no matter how perfect you think it is - if you're to move fast, you need to have two successive actions (if the first is plus, a secondary -, and tertiary + ) ready to go - so that contingencies can be met. Bin Laden and I both had problems because Casey wasn't careful enough that way.

The UN has work to do - and time to spend. The US has good reasons for some of the things it insists on - other powers do, too - international law is not so much in being as in nascency - and there is a lot of reason for people to "keep talking" - - even if they feel sure of their position.

There are subcultures, some in American colleges, where it used to be more or less assumed that a couple would get engaged and have sex at almost the same time. In the ideal, there would be a ring on her finger, and sexual completion in an "indistinguishable" order. The ideal was to have the negotiation go 'round and round - like lots of bird courtship sequences - and have both sides tired, hot, and practicing enough brinksmanship in a series of interactions with metastable transitions so that - for the rest of their lives, each side could argue, in any way that happened to be convenient, whether the engagement or the sexual pairing was consummated first.

Depending on circumstances, each might wish to take either side, in a fight that mattered some to the parties, but not too much, with themes or variations - some course - some quite subtle.

Discussions with the parents or friends of the male and female partner would be likely to get different stories - and nobody could prove a thing.

Such "fights" can, and often did, become formats wherein the couple could negotiate a lot of other things - without anybody violating anybody too badly - so that finer calibrations in the partnership could occur than might have been possible otherwise. Sometimes, they could also be a way of getting laughs or cries when these were useful for release. I was hoping for such a scenario with Marti - but she died a few days too early for me to have the chance.

Alliances have "useful disagreements" that dither negotiations in an analogous way. With animals, there are some analogies in "displacement activity" that becomes a sort of stylized oscillatory, repeatable dance. When things are tense, and conflicted, such dances can be useful.

Oscillatory solutions in the Middle East and the Korean peninsula are avaliable -- very, very good ones. Stable static solutions are not, so far as I can see. It seems to me that everybody involved ought to think carefully about what they actually need - and what they can concede - and people need to take some time. Fighting - and biter words - may have their place - but draconian simplifications can only hurt just now, it seems to me.

Sorry for moving slowly. I've been doing some selfish sweating. But it seems to me that people need to be careful not to "solve" things too quickly, when much better results will be available if people take time.

mazza9 - 04:26pm Jan 21, 2003 EST (# 7881 of 7899)
"Quae cum ita sunt" Caesar's Gallic Commentaries

Robert says: "Sorry for moving slowly. I've been doing some selfish sweating. But it seems to me that people need to be careful not to "solve" things too quickly, when much better results will be available if people take time."

What he means is if anyone but him "solves" a problem it isn't solved because only he can arbitrate/determine whether a problem is solved!

Robert by definition "solve" means that the correct answer to a particular question has been derived. Your intervention is not sought or desired.

So you're pumping iron so that you can solve Lunarchick's problems. Are you preparing for "Survivor" or "American Idol?"

Good Luck!

gisterme - 05:02pm Jan 21, 2003 EST (# 7882 of 7899)

rshow55 - 02:59pm Jan 21, 2003 EST (# 7880...)

"...Oscillatory solutions in the Middle East and the Korean peninsula are avaliable -- very, very good ones..."

For example??? You've never quite explained what you mean by an "oscillatory solution", Robert. I've asked before. Here's your chance.

"...Stable static solutions are not, so far as I can see..."

Stability does not imply stasis. For example, the situation on the Korean Penensula has been stable for about 50 years. Less than optimal, but stable. However, SK has managed to move forward econmically and to become a responsible, peaceful and valuable member of the world. SK is a major player in the Asian economic game and significant in the world economy.

The NK dictatorship on the other hand has desperatly clung to its internal power structure, isolated itself in so doing, and because of that, finds itself left behind by the rest of the world. Devoid of any economic power, all NK can do is threaten war.

To me that's an interesting and revealing contrast.

More Messages Recent Messages (17 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Email to Sysop  Your Preferences  Logout

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  / Missile Defense





Home | Back to Readers' Opinions Back to Top


Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company | Privacy Policy | Contact Us