We're back in the USSR...

[Philistine]

My main argument against SDI is the large cost versus what is probably the least likely vector of nuclear attack (along with the dubious chance of success, at least with current technology).

In today's climate--attack by ICBM seems the least likely way to deliver a nuclear attack against the US. It is subject to clear identification of origin--as well as requiring large technical ability to make and maintain.

Far more likely seems to be smuggling into a port or launch from a ship of a short to medium range missile. Neither of these types are succeptible to SDI--and both types tend to hide the origin much better.

While a numerical superiory in ICBM's may not stop a strike from another nation's ICBM's once they are launched--the MAD doctrine has served through the Cold War as a preventative measure, and presumably would have more force where it is not mutual destruction, but only unilateral destruction which would be assured.

--Philistine

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by jeff

Except that there's a lot of scientific support for global warming models

Uh huh....right...

and very little for SDI. SDI is more like "cargo cult" and wishful thinking.

Let me guess which one you believe and which one you don't like...

I remember when David Parnas resigned from SDIO because he felt it was fundamentally flawed.

I remember when Teller theorized that testing an atomic bomb was a bad idea because it might ignite and burn off the earth's atmosphere...

( Well, OK, I don't, but he did believe that nevertheless--and on the basis of "lots of scientific support", at that. )

The point is, it's all theory. And the human race would probably still be wandering naked around Africa hunting wildebeest if the defeatist "it can't be done" attitude you bring up were prevalent. The bulk of scientific advancement was made in spite of just such dubiety as you mention. "It's impossible, so why investigate further?" is a pretty poor credo for a scientist, don't you think?

certainly you'll agree to bide by what the overwhelming scientific view of SDI stated.

Uh...one scientist makes for an "overwhelming" consensus view?

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by jeff

Really? That's a heck of a stretch.... None of that describes Iraq. This is taking completely separate things and claiming they're the same.

No, Jeff, I was not doing that. I was pointing out the irony involved in warning about the angers of "fighting the last war" and then supporting exactly that practice in regard to Iraq: because that's what was being touted as the alternative strategy there, just treat him like the Soviet Union and "contain" Saddam...

Or do you contend that Powell, the old general, was not "fighting the last war" in devising his Doctrine? That he was not trying to apply the old lessons of his long career to a novel situation?

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by jeff

SDI is unlikely to work no matter how many billions we throw at it, and is pointed at the threat which is least likely to be the one that faces us.

Have it your own way. Looks like you've already made up your mind...and are unlikely to change it no matter how many billions of arguments I throw at it.

I don't know whether SDI can ever work or not, because I simply haven't the education or experience necessary to make that assessment. I do think that we enjoy a whole lot of things which were probably dismissed similarly as pie in the sky or dangerous lunacy at some time in the past. Progress climbs over the bodies of scoffers and doubters as a matter of course, and always has. The difference between us, I think, is that I do not know but am willing to find out; you have decided that you DO know, and have no further interest in the matter...indeed, are actively hostile toward any attempts to look further.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Philistine

My main argument against SDI is the large cost versus what is probably the least likely vector of nuclear attack (along with the dubious chance of success, at least with current technology).

This is a better foundation for an adverse opinion, IMO, than I have seen thus far. I don't know that I agree with it, because science is not my strong suit, but cost-benefit analysis seems to me much preferable to dismissals on the grounds that it's impossible or immoral...

In today's climate--attack by ICBM seems the least likely way to deliver a nuclear attack against the US. It is subject to clear identification of origin--as well as requiring large technical ability to make and maintain.

Far more likely seems to be smuggling into a port or launch from a ship of a short to medium range missile. Neither of these types are succeptible to SDI--and both types tend to hide the origin much better.

True, but I believe SDI is ( or was ) intended as protection against large-scale general exchanges rather than as against single isolated ones. It may be the case that the need for the former has waned sufficiently to have made it otiose. Certainly the tense atmosphere of the Cold War MAD era is less palpable today. And certainly more needs to be done in the line you and Jeff suggest: border protection and detection. But should we discard the SDI effort entirely on those grounds? I'm not so sure that follows....

the MAD doctrine has served through the Cold War as a preventative measure, and presumably would have more force where it is not mutual destruction, but only unilateral destruction which would be assured.

--Philistine

That assumes sanity and enlightened self-interest on the part of those in control of such weapons. I'm not confident the assumption is strong when it comes to the mullahs of Iran or that loon Kim Jong Il---much less of someone like Osama Bin Laden, who would probably be overjoyed to contemplate being unilaterally destroyed if he felt it would sufficiently advance his cause and harm his enemy at the same time...

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

{snip}
True, but I believe SDI is ( or was ) intended as protection against large-scale general exchanges rather than as against single isolated ones.

Actually, the other way around. The projected capability is meant to protect against a deliberate attack by a rogue nation, or an accidental or unauthorized launch from a nuclear power.

{snip}
But should we discard the SDI effort entirely on those grounds? I'm not so sure that follows....

Not per se. The down-side of the current SDI program (National Missile Defense, or NMD) is that it doesn't seem to actually work, except under tightly controlled circumstances (and even then, not particularly well).

In a time of limited budgets, it appears to me to make more sense to allocate money towards addressing the largest area of vulnerability as opposed to spending large amounts to close small windows, with technology that may not even provide the limited function it is designed for.

Currently, the 4 (soon to be six) interceptors based in Alaska are--at best, symbolic. At worst, they are actually destabilizing. Already, Russia has announced it is working on weapons which would be able to bypass the NMD system (terminal cruise-missiles from ICBM launch vehicles). The US is also working on a hypersonic cruise-missile which would also be impervious to NMD (ostensibly for fast-reaction conventional munitions).

In a "perfect" world, I wouldn't mind seeing a big SDI push--mostly for the spin-off technology like we got from the space program (and because things like x-ray lasers, neutral particle beam weapons, and rail guns are just cool to any science-fiction lover....). But, IMHO, the NMD put in place just doesn't make either financial or military sense. Personally, I'd go for a theater-based boost-phase system--which has fewer political downsides and better feasibility IMHO--but that lost out, as nearly as I can tell, to inter-service rivalry.

That assumes sanity and enlightened self-interest on the part of those in control of such weapons. I'm not confident the assumption is strong when it comes to the mullahs of Iran or that loon Kim Jong Il---much less of someone like Osama Bin Laden, who would probably be overjoyed to contemplate being unilaterally destroyed if he felt it would sufficiently advance his cause and harm his enemy at the same time...

To an extent. But it again dictates the delivery system. Bin Laden does not have, and won't have an ICBM. North Korea does--and at least on paper Alaska and the West Coast can be reached. Iran doesn't--yet, but probably could within the next 5-10 years.

In all events, though, why use an ICBM when you've only got a couple which makes it quite chancy and limits your target--when you can put it in a ship, and sail into whatever harbor you want? Even at best, if a crazy dictator wants to attack the US--all you've done by putting up NMD is changed the vector of attack--from ICMB to some other way not impacted by NMD.

--Philistine

[jeff]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Uh huh....right...

Yes. Right.

Just as there are differences in opinion on the details of evolution, and some deniers, and the door is certainly not closed to other theories should they pass muster against the evidence, but this is where the scientific consensus and evidence reside. It's a lot more solid in substantiation than supply-side economics You said to Philistine, "science is not my strong suit". I don't know if you meant to be ironic or jocular, but if you weren't you should desist from sneering at those who are good at science, and in particular the many scientists who have researched and substantiated global warming theories. We have another thread active on that subject there, so I suggest we take further discussion of global warming there.

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Let me guess which one you believe and which one you don't like...

In time it will come to you, I'm sure.

Originally Posted by Inquartata

I remember when Teller theorized that testing an atomic bomb was a bad idea because it might ignite and burn off the earth's atmosphere...

( Well, OK, I don't, but he did believe that nevertheless--and on the basis of "lots of scientific support", at that. )

You have this wrong: he didn't do it on the basis of "lots of scientific support", as you put it. He made an error in his formulas, which Hans Bethe pointed out. He was the statistical outlier believing that this could happen. See, for instance, http://www.childrenofthemanhattanpro...TORY/H-05b.htm See also http://news-service.stanford.edu/new...robit-924.html I think Feynmann also commented on this on his autobiography but it's home so I can't check.

Originally Posted by Inquartata

The point is, it's all theory. (snip!)

And so are the theories of gravitation, and of the atomic physics, relativity, and even the existence of the electron, yet they describe the observed facts. Non-scientific people like to blurt it "it's only theory" as a put-down, as if that meant "it's only a conjecture, no better or worse than any other". That's a complete misunderstanding of what theory means in science - explanation or description that is backed by evidence and logic. Not just made up stuff.

Originally Posted by Inquartata

And the human race would probably still be wandering naked around Africa hunting wildebeest if the defeatist "it can't be done" attitude you bring up were prevalent.

And if the human race had spent it's time trying to escape predators by flapping their arms in the hope they could fly or other things that would be great if only they were true, they would have gone extinct. Doing things that make little sense based on wishful thinking, over extended periods of time and at great expense is not good strategy for survival then or now.

Originally Posted by Inquartata

The bulk of scientific advancement was made in spite of just such dubiety as you mention. "It's impossible, so why investigate further?" is a pretty poor credo for a scientist, don't you think?

A lovely, content-free way of sweeping aside any scientific opinion that is inconvenient to your position. Just say "it's all theory" and ignore both the theory and the facts that bolster them. You could just as validly use that argument to say that the moon really is made of green cheese, and if we keep looking we'll find it. Or any other claim unconnected to reality.

You may not have noticed, but we did "investigate further" since Reagan. Advocates of SDI still have no satisfactory answers for how they'll solve a slew of problems, and have spent almost 20 years and many billions of dollars trying to do so. Nobody says "it's impossible, why investigate further", they say "it's damned hard, they haven't figured out how to handle some of the problems pointed out 20 years ago, and they have investigated further."

The SDI problem isn't a problem of pure science based on the need for a new theory of understanding the world. It's a very challenging problem of engineering that requires incredible improvements in both base science and our ability to solve a number of problems that still appear intractable.

A pretty poor credo of a scientist is to keep trying things that don't work without a realistic basis for how they might be made to work, just because you devoutly wish they'll work. Cold fusion anyone? Anti-gravity? Perpetual motion?

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Uh...one scientist makes for an "overwhelming" consensus view?

No, he's just the one I cited, and notable because he was in SDIO and left it in protest. He made quite a stir on this subject and was prominent in a number of famous debates and papers. This was widely known, and if you had knowledge of the software engineering world and read the scholarly journals of the time (as I did then and still do. Heck, I was even published in 'SIGPLAN Notices') you would know about this. If you want to learn something about this there's plenty of material you can study.

In fact, Parnas was central to the discussion. The fact that you didn't know who he was shows you know little of the subject. To just say 'one scientist' is like arguing about economics without knowing who the hell Adam Smith, Keynes, or Friedman are. More appropriately, it's like taking a position in an argument about whether the Sun rotates around the earth or vice-versa, without knowing anything of astronomy and without knowing that there had been a big argument about it previously, and that a guy named Galileo was involved.

[jeff]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

No, Jeff, I was not doing that. I was pointing out the irony involved in warning about the angers of "fighting the last war" and then supporting exactly that practice in regard to Iraq: because that's what was being touted as the alternative strategy there, just treat him like the Soviet Union and "contain" Saddam...

Or do you contend that Powell, the old general, was not "fighting the last war" in devising his Doctrine? That he was not trying to apply the old lessons of his long career to a novel situation?

I see the metaphor you're making now, I guess. I was more focussed on trying to build a Cold War-inspired ICBM defense as emblematic of "fighting the last war", and on the many substantial differences between the USSR and pre-invasion Iraq.

[jeff]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Have it your own way. Looks like you've already made up your mind...and are unlikely to change it no matter how many billions of arguments I throw at it.

Nor how many billions of dollars we mutually throw at it. "Never work" is an overstatement of my position. "Extremely unlikely to work". "impossible to know in advance or even after deployed if it will be effective", "solves the wrong problem", "based on not much more than wishful thinking" are closer to my opinions, which, with all due respect, I think are on a more informed basis than yours, at least for the computer engineering aspects of this - and they are critical.

Originally Posted by Inquartata

I don't know whether SDI can ever work or not, because I simply haven't the education or experience necessary to make that assessment.

On the computer engineering aspects, and less so on the physical sciences I do have that advantage over you. Science is my strong point.

At one time, for example, the SDI guys were suggesting AI (Artificial Intelligence) and neural networks for their solutions. Not to go into a whole discussion of what that entails, but in short summary they were proposing non-deterministic, heuristic "maybe try this, or maybe try that" algorithms for something that had to work the very first time or lose millions of lives. Against that kind of thought you just throw your hands up in despair, which is essentially what the computer science world did at the time. People in the other necessary technologies may or may not have done the same, but in my bailiwick I know what the response was.

Originally Posted by Inquartata

I do think that we enjoy a whole lot of things which were probably dismissed similarly as pie in the sky or dangerous lunacy at some time in the past. Progress climbs over the bodies of scoffers and doubters as a matter of course, and always has. The difference between us, I think, is that I do not know but am willing to find out; you have decided that you DO know, and have no further interest in the matter...indeed, are actively hostile toward any attempts to look further.

The alternative to not knowing everything is not to say that knowing nothing is equally valid. I do know something about the technical challenges involved; clearly you do not. There are real engineering problems with SDI. They haven't been solved. The tests they put up even today are deeply dumbed-down versions of the problems that would have to be solved in reality. They've been working on it for years with little to show. The expectations that have been raised are completely divorced from the reality that has been experienced for two decades. These are recipes for disaster, as anyone with an engineering background could tell you.

Are you really willing to continue to spend billions of dollars, and base our future safety on a hypothetical "gee, wouldn't it be great if this worked, and that's where the threat actually came from" technology? Philistine already mentioned the problems of destabilisation, and some of the other technology problems and restates the obvious that the people who are the biggest threat have limitations with delivery systems that make SDI not be the best way to protect ourselves.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Philistine

Actually, the other way around. The projected capability is meant to protect against a deliberate attack by a rogue nation, or an accidental or unauthorized launch from a nuclear power.

In it's current incarnation, yes; but the original SDI program was not the Bush Administration G-PALS program. SDI was intended to provide an "umbrella" against a massive Soviet first strike. However, the latter is still "on the books" as an expansion goal after G-PALS is up and running...

The down-side of the current SDI program (National Missile Defense, or NMD) is that it doesn't seem to actually work, except under tightly controlled circumstances (and even then, not particularly well).

I would only add to that the word "yet". This is the general way of things with sophisticated, complex technological innovations, is it not? First they don't work, then they sort of work but with lots of bugs, then they improve as the research and testing and adjustment processes continue. I can't think of many such systems which were completely effective from the outset...

In a time of limited budgets, it appears to me to make more sense to allocate money towards addressing the largest area of vulnerability as opposed to spending large amounts to close small windows, with technology that may not even provide the limited function it is designed for.

Well---that may be. We live in a world of limited resources and unlimited goals competing for said resources. And the Soviet Union has receded as a large-scale threat; certainly the need to force a rival to engage in a "defense race", thereby contributing to its bankruptcy, is no more. Though such conditions may of course return some day.

Still, North Korea and the loose security on former Soviet ICBMs remain nagging worries. While it may seem more likely that a terrorist group would simply smuggle in a suitcase nuke or jerry-rig a bomb in situ, we know, if we know anything, that they prefer to do the unexpected and that we are prone to blind spots. While we are tightening border security, might they not simply capture or buy an existing missile somewhere and launch it? What would a suicidal jihadi care if he were killed by security forces after successfully getting off a poorly guarded Russian SS-18? Much less about a retaliatory strike against another "enemy of Islam"?

Russia has announced it is working on weapons which would be able to bypass the NMD system (terminal cruise-missiles from ICBM launch vehicles).

Yes. It rather reminds me of Senator Kerry's secret plans. "We're developing a super-duper secret new sort of missile which nobody else will ever have, 'cause it's so secret and unique. Trust us, we really are." I don't know that I buy it, given their straitened financial conditions.

In a "perfect" world, I wouldn't mind seeing a big SDI push--mostly for the spin-off technology like we got from the space program

A good point.

things like x-ray lasers, neutral particle beam weapons, and rail guns

Not to mention the more mundane assets, like orbital platforms and other global reconnaissance capabilities...

[Gav]

So Inq' are you really in favour of nuclear capable orbital platforms?

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by jeff

Just as there are differences in opinion on the details of evolution, and some deniers, and the door is certainly not closed to other theories should they pass muster against the evidence, but this is where the scientific consensus and evidence reside.

Well---that's a bit different.

I do not assert that the theories are wrong; I merely do not as yet accept that they are, inevitably and indisputably, right. At this point the models are still too crude and limited, the possible variables too poorly understood and the evidence too disparate and wildly unintegrated for me to accept the conclusions, much less the policy recommendations. I am of the mind that we had best do as phtsicians are bade: first, do no harm.

It's a lot more solid in substantiation than supply-side economics

Very droll, if not entirely accurate...

You said to Philistine, "science is not my strong suit". I don't know if you meant to be ironic or jocular, but if you weren't you should desist from sneering at those who are good at science

And I've done that---where, again?

To question is not "sneering", nor is blindly swallowing a conclusion respect.

It is true that the sciences are not my strong suit, in that I am not one for solving equations or collecting and analyzing core samples or performing laboratory experiments. That does not mean that I cannot listen to those who do such things, just as policymakers do, and evaluate their overall presentations, of the which there have been no dearth put into layman's terms over the last decade or so. It does not mean that I cannot listen likewise to critiques of the theories---critiques also made by scientists looking at the same evidence and models---and evaluate those. On balance, the critiques have struck me as the more convincing.

You have this wrong: he didn't do it on the basis of "lots of scientific support", as you put it. He made an error in his formulas, which Hans Bethe pointed out.

Ah. But of course there can be no such "errors" in the global warming models. Got it.

And so are the theories of gravitation, and of the atomic physics, relativity, and even the existence of the electron, yet they describe the observed facts.

Oh, right, and global warming is right up there with those in terms of solidity...

Non-scientific people like to blurt it "it's only theory" as a put-down, as if that meant "it's only a conjecture, no better or worse than any other". That's a complete misunderstanding of what theory means in science - explanation or description that is backed by evidence and logic. Not just made up stuff.

And rather than asking what I meant, you preferred to assume that I was making such a stupid argument. Thanks, Jeff, that's ever so complimentary of you. Did you think it'd help you establish your case somehow?

You might note that I was referring to the derogation of the "theories" informing the SDI programs which you and others have been about, not to global warming theories, in that passage. Let me just un"snip" what you chose to delete:

"And the human race would probably still be wandering naked around Africa hunting wildebeest if the defeatist "it can't be done" attitude you bring up were prevalent. The bulk of scientific advancement was made in spite of just such dubiety as you mention. "It's impossible, so why investigate further?" is a pretty poor credo for a scientist, don't you think?"

But of course, from your lofty vantage of scientific superiority, your dismissal of the mere theory behind SDI and your implication that it need be pursued no further is somehow qualitatively different than that of which you'd accuse "non-scientific people"...

Here's the thing: I brought up global warming as a way of drawing your attention to the inconsistency of buying into the one unproven theory whilst simultaneously ridiculing the other. And you of course dig your heels in even deeper in response.

If you want respect for the fruits of scientific research, how about you be so good as to insist on in across the board, not only for the particular brands which you like?

Nobody says "it's impossible, why investigate further", they say "it's damned hard, they haven't figured out how to handle some of the problems pointed out 20 years ago, and they have investigated further."

So then what you're saying is "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again; then give up." Is that it?

How long did it take Man to work out the basics of chemistry? Should we have quit investigating after alchemy proved a dead end?

The SDI problem isn't a problem of pure science based on the need for a new theory of understanding the world. It's a very challenging problem of engineering that requires incredible improvements in both base science and our ability to solve a number of problems that still appear intractable.

So, again---it's too hard, better to give it up?

To just say 'one scientist' is like arguing about economics without knowing who the hell Adam Smith, Keynes, or Friedman are.

No, it'd be more like trying to impress someone that your economics were right by citing only Thurow or Coase....or Friedman.

But you are right in the respect of the superficiality of my knowledge on climatology. That's why airily citing one fellow of whom I've never heard as though that settles the matter to everyone's satisfaction isn't sufficient to convince---because it just doesn't go very far to counteract the critiques I've heard of the overall theory over the years. As I said above, those critiques may not have been laid out as mathematical proofs or symposia reports; they may have been put into layman's terms for the masses; but they were so translated by people who DO know their way around the models and the data, and that's the only basis upon which a layman can form an opinion. Unless you are advancing the position that we all just ought to do what the scientists tell us to do and not question our betters?

[jeff]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Well---that's a bit different.

I do not assert that the theories are wrong; I merely do not as yet accept that they are, inevitably and indisputably, right. At this point the models are still too crude and limited, the possible variables too poorly understood and the evidence too disparate and wildly unintegrated for me to accept the conclusions, much less the policy recommendations. I am of the mind that we had best do as phtsicians are bade: first, do no harm.

Scientists with a lot more expertise in this than you or I feel the models are sufficiently refined to show the general theme of global warming. I agree with "do no harm", but take the opposite conclusion: it means we should refrain from doing further harm that increases global warming, and that's almost the exact languages used by those same authorities.

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Very droll, if not entirely accurate...

Maybe, maybe not.

Originally Posted by Inquartata

And I've done that---where, again?

Originally Posted by Inquartata: Uh huh....right...

Originally Posted by Inquartata

To question is not "sneering", nor is blindly swallowing a conclusion respect.

It is true that the sciences are not my strong suit, in that I am not one for solving equations or collecting and analyzing core samples or performing laboratory experiments. That does not mean that I cannot listen to those who do such things, just as policymakers do, and evaluate their overall presentations, of the which there have been no dearth put into layman's terms over the last decade or so. It does not mean that I cannot listen likewise to critiques of the theories---critiques also made by scientists looking at the same evidence and models---and evaluate those. On balance, the critiques have struck me as the more convincing.

By the same rubric that you apparently felt we should line up with the "Economists unimpressed by Kerry", I suggest that that we pay credence to those experts saying that there is strong evidence of global warming (and describe the mechanisms, evidence, and etiology in detail). I further would say that there's a lot more consensus about scientists on warming than there is among economists about Bush vs. Kerry.

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Ah. But of course there can be no such "errors" in the global warming models. Got it.

Nor in Black-Scholes economic models, but you're willing to give the economic community a lot more credence. What's good for the goose is good for the gander (Plus, LTCM did go bankrupt. Plus: do no harm). Much more than just one model, and lots of empirical evidence says that global warming is not a hallucination.

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Oh, right, and global warming is right up there with those in terms of solidity...

And you want to wait until it is before we cut our CO2 emissions?

Originally Posted by Inquartata

And rather than asking what I meant, you preferred to assume that I was making such a stupid argument. Thanks, Jeff, that's ever so complimentary of you. Did you think it'd help you establish your case somehow?

You might note that I was referring to the derogation of the "theories" informing the SDI programs which you and others have been about, not to global warming theories, in that passage. Let me just un"snip" what you chose to delete:

"And the human race would probably still be wandering naked around Africa hunting wildebeest if the defeatist "it can't be done" attitude you bring up were prevalent. The bulk of scientific advancement was made in spite of just such dubiety as you mention. "It's impossible, so why investigate further?" is a pretty poor credo for a scientist, don't you think?"

But of course, from your lofty vantage of scientific superiority, your dismissal of the mere theory behind SDI and your implication that it need be pursued no further is somehow qualitatively different than that of which you'd accuse "non-scientific people"...

Here's the thing: I brought up global warming as a way of drawing your attention to the inconsistency of buying into the one unproven theory whilst simultaneously ridiculing the other. And you of course dig your heels in even deeper in response.

If you want respect for the fruits of scientific research, how about you be so good as to insist on in across the board, not only for the particular brands which you like?

I'll carefully not snip anything this time, though that goes against my preference for not repeating text that's clearly visible. If you read my post again you'll see I kept, rather than deleted, your text about naked wildebeest hunters, and the poor credo business as well.

It sure looked to me as if you were using the "it's only theory ploy". How else did you expect me to interpret "It's all theory" right after putting down theoretical claims of global warming? Be more clear.

Global warming does proceed from theories of ecology. What theories of SDI are you referring to? That if you manage to whack a projectile hard enough at the right time you'll blow it up? That's not a theory play. In fact, the theory involved is more along game theory and answering the questions Parnas raised, and the SDI proponents don't seemed to have answered them. If anything, SDI is theory-poor.

As I said in a prior post, SDI is more of engineering (and requiring breakthroughs) than new theory. Right now, empirical evidence of 20 years says "SDI doesn't work and we don't have a model of what it would take to make it work". Important scientists have come out to say that SDI is poorly founded. If there was a theoretical underpinning to SDI, the scientists would have been able to answer the points Parnas brought up in the 80s in at least theoretical sense, and should have made concrete progress towards solving them. The latter is highly troubling; the former shows that they lack a theoretical basis.

Originally Posted by Inquartata

So then what you're saying is "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again; then give up." Is that it?

Not quite. I have little problem with having some budget reserved for this program, but this should be balanced against our other strategic needs, budgeted accordingly, and then subject to accountability and cancellation unless it provides progress towards deliverables. What we have now is "try, try, try, try, try, try, try. try, try...." regardless of delivering success, while there are extremely frightening and credible threats that we are ignoring by not protecting our ports and borders. That's the Maginot Line analogy, except they actually did manage to produce a Maginot Line (but it had been rendered irrelevant due to changes in war). We haven't success