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.

lchic - 10:33am Mar 14, 2003 EST (# 9929 of 9943)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

"" Yesterday the Queen cancelled a visit to Belgium, originally scheduled for next week, reinforcing speculation that war could begin around Wednesday March 19, once the manoeuvring at the UN is over.

The US secretary of state, Colin Powell, indicated last night that war could be imminent

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,914326,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/

rshow55 - 10:41am Mar 14, 2003 EST (# 9930 of 9943)
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.

This is very hopeful, and I think it shows excellent judgement:

U.S., Britain and Spain Will Meet to Plan Their Next Move By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-US-Iraq.html

WASHINGTON -- President Bush . . . will confer this weekend in the Azores with British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar, his two closest allies.

Things look good to me, and it seems to me that these leaders, if they do things right - may find an honored place in history. When there is so much potential for change - they have to worry about mistakes, of course. In a complex situation - to be "exactly right" about one thing, from one perspective, can be to be "exactly wrong" about another thing, or from another perspective. With well set up patterns of exception handling - it is possible to be "exactly right" -- (or right enough for very good performance) about everything that matters to the case.

If people go for solutions that are over-simple - that's impossible. Too much complication is muddled - but over complex machines can do particular jobs that have particular complex requirements. A machine that is too simple just can't.

Like millions of other people, I wish I could be there to watch - and I'll try to point out a few things today that they might perhaps find helpful.

Here is one thing where I believe they are right . The whole world needs coherent patterns of power that actually fit the circumstances that are there - in human terms. I think they're wrong about a lot of other things - but don't have to be if they think straight and act carefully.

If the UN can meet those standards now - that's wonderful. From where things are, some patterns at the UN will have to be improved.

US power exists, and it has a great deal about it that is rational and coordinated - but has problems, too. Putting the matter gently. This thread has discussed a lot of them - with Almarst's important and much-appreciated help.

rshow55 - 10:45am Mar 14, 2003 EST (# 9931 of 9943)
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.

In mid-January, I got a certain way along talking about "oscillatory" solutions, and backed off, mainly because key people didn't seem ready to hear a key fact - that there is a lot of unconscious processing, a lot of repression, some deception - and that everyone can be wrong - and get things backwards. Now, after Slater's fine article, and some of the details we've learned about NASA - it may be easier for people to hear it. 7789-90 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.7UUHaJ4I5vW.1945989@.f28e622/9314

Thomas Edison is a good figure to rememer here, it seems to me. He believed in the value of guided trial and error - and often got to right answers in very few iterations. Often, if something that made sense didn't work the first time - Edoson learned from that first (or second, or third) time - and tried again. Very often, good answers converged. He also had a high ideal about what a beautiful technical solution looks like. He tried asked: "What is the the most obvious damn thing I could possibly do, right here?" That's a question worth thinking long and hard about.

Without enough fact checking, we're involved with problems where there is no solution - but it wouldn't take much checking of reasonably prioritized facts to sort out a lot. Here's a political fact. Both the Bush and the Blair administration can be and will be forgiven almost anything - if in the end they make decisions that turn out well.

I'll be trying to be constructive today - pointing a few things out, many nutsy boltsy, that might avoid obvious and avoidable mistakes. It seems to me that a lot of things are very hopeful - ugly as they are.

Is the meeting adequately staffed? A high ranking enlisted man could check - and might be the best person for that checking purpose. Have the staffs involved listed what matters - to people and interests that have to be dealt with? Are key facts listed - and the reasons they matter clear? A decent first year graduate student in any number of good programs (including good journalism programs) could check this, too. The best person - on short notice, could probably be found by asking the very best beat reporter anybody could find to finger that person.

(12 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense