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 - 08:29am Feb 24, 2003 EST (# 9250 of 9253)
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.

From July of last year: America the Invulnerable? The World Looks Again By STEVEN ERLANGER http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/21/weekinreview/21ERLA.html

"The Atlantic is fundamentally divided over attitudes to power, Mr. Kagan asserts. The Europeans, to escape their bloody history, are sharing sovereignty in the European Union, "moving beyond power into a self-contained world of laws and rules and transnational negotiation and cooperation."

"The United States, as a traditional nation-state bestriding the world and seeing threats all around, is "exercising power in the anarchic Hobbesian world where international laws and rules are unreliable and where true security and the defense and promotion of a liberal order still depend on the possession and use of military might."

"So, Mr. Kagan argues, behind the bitterness of the policy disputes are deep differences in values and politics, stemming from different histories and attitudes toward power and threat. The continental drift isn't a function of one administration, although the tone may change, with Mr. Bush more blunt than the ever-emollient Bill Clinton.

"The resolution, Mr. Kagan believes, is in a Europe that will commit more money and resources to the military — to the ability to project power, at least through the Balkans and perhaps the Middle East. Only then will Washington take Europe more seriously. Mr. Kagan says he would like Europe to take such steps, but doubts that it will.

That may be part of the resolution. A more basic part - a more fundamental goal is to make a world where international laws and rules are much more reliable

That is in large part a logical task - we need to know - better than we do - how people actually work - both when things work well - and when they don't - so we can make things better.

On soldiers and responsibility: THE 'EATHEN by Rudyard Kipling http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7b085/18

we aren't ideally logical beings - nor entirely conscious. Sometimes we repress and cooperate in repression in many senses (the poem includes good examples) - and sometimes we are automatic - and necessarily so.

More Kipling:

Mesopotamia .....1917 http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee74d94/3625

Soldier an' Sailor Too http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?13@@.ee79f4e/1702

THE VIRGINITY http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee79f4e/1295

rshow55 - 08:30am Feb 24, 2003 EST (# 9251 of 9253)
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.

A classic experiment is described in THE STRUCTURE OF SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTIONS 2nd Ed. by Thomas S. Kuhn, , at the end of Chapter 6 “Anomaly and the Emergence of Scientific Discoveries”

313 http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@138.SCCbcNceBno^1@.ee7726f/367

314 http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@138.SCCbcNceBno^1@.ee7726f/368

Some other references to paradigm conflict problems - which are a barrier to peaceful resolution - are set out in 116 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@201.dgfSa6OVF8o^287330@.f28e622/137

The long, distinguished editorial yesterday Power and Leadership: The Real Meaning of Iraq http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/23/opinion/23SUN1.html says that

" More discussion is the only road that will get the world to the right outcome — concerted effort by a wide coalition of nations to force Saddam Hussein to give up his weapons of mass destruction. We need another debate. Another struggle to make this the United Nations' leadership moment.

We have to learn how to get closure - which often seems so close - and then eludes us.

An understanding of repression is important here. And the fact that we're automatic, as well. An area where those things are important is reading instruction - where both repression and automaticity - unconscious automatic processing - are important.

A huge step forward - in diplomacy, and life generally - would be for people to admit that - for everybody - repression and unconscious processing exist . When it matters enough - it can be morally compelling to look at them - to avoid mistakes and tragedies.

(2 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense