New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

Russian military leaders have expressed concern about US plans for a national missile defense system. Will defense technology be limited by possibilities for a strategic imbalance? Is this just SDI all over again?

rshowalt - 02:10pm May 29, 2001 EST (#4273 of 4466)

NATO policy "in case you haven't noticed" MD3889:leungki 5/15/01 4:06am

MD3890:rshowalter 5/15/01 6:17am .... MD3892: rshowalter 5/15/01 6:25am

Without getting facts straight, much more reliably than is now done, (and this means that, when it counts, somewhere somehow, checking has to be morally forcing ) the world situation is "beyond redemption."

If we're clear on our situations, we can do a lot better than we're doing, and can avoid many horrors. Though there will still be mistakes, and horrors. There is no reason for anyone to expect universal rightness or good will from anyone else, or themselves. But, on average, and in the aggregate, we can still do better than we've done, and better than we're doing.

Misinformation is dangerous and costly, and the danger and cost increases fast as situations become more coupled and more complex.

Lies and misinformation, however motivated, or unmotivated, have always been expensive and dangerous, and they are getting more expensive and more dangerous all the time.

MD3892:rshowalter 5/15/01 6:45am .... MD3894:rshowalter 5/15/01 6:45am
MD3895:rshowalter 5/15/01 6:47am . . . . . MD3896 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@174.FldLagHvpdV^494236@.f0ce57b/4172.. reads in part:

" One thing the Bush administration seems to be doing. It is giving the whole world a sense of the fallibility and the narrowness of sympathy of the United States. .....................Whatever else one may say, there are elements of good in that - unthinking deference to the US has caused plenty of problems -- and the world may be getting more sensible about that issue. "

rshowalt - 02:14pm May 29, 2001 EST (#4274 of 4466)

In connection to Thomas L. Friedman's 95 to 5 http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/29/opinion/29FRIE.html

" . . . . . the U.N.-haters have been on a tear. So I have an idea: Let's quit the U.N. That's right, let's just walk. Most of its members don't speak English anyway. What an insult! Let's just shut it down and turn it into another Trump Tower. That Security Council table would make a perfect sushi bar.

" No? You don't want to leave the U.N. to the Europeans and Russians? Then let's stop bellyaching about the U.N., and manipulating our dues, and start taking it seriously for what it is - a global forum that spends 95 percent of its energy endorsing the wars and peacekeeping missions that the U.S. wants endorsed, or taking on the thankless humanitarian missions that the U.S. would like done but doesn't want to do itself. The U.N. actually spends only 5 percent of its time annoying the U.S. Not a bad deal.

MD3899: rshowalter 5/15/01 7:15am ... reads in part:

"Thought experiment.

"Suppose that, within the United Nations (which is a human group full of informal and ad hoc organizations) there was an " organization of un-american activities" including a "committee of the whole, minus one" --every nation but the United States.

. . . . .

"Would there be things to talk about?

"If such an "ad hoc" organization knit together, and took intelligent action, how effective could it be?

"Is the world really helpless before U.S. power? Isn't it unhealthy that countries seem to think so?

The world is NOT helpless, and there is time. Trust isn't necessary, so long as forces are well adapted to purposes, and checking is possible. There is plenty of reason to "keep talking" -- and changes in the rhetorical stance of the Bush administration seem to be steps consistent with real peace -- given a lot of other things.

gisterme - 02:28pm May 29, 2001 EST (#4275 of 4466)

smartalix wrote: "...Missile defense could work if deployed as part of a multinational peace initiative. They could tie the space-based surveillance portion into the ISS..."

It seems unlikely that the US would actually do a BMD as a completely unilateral effort. There's far too much to be gained by making it an international effort for the US and all the other parties involved. It's unlikely that a BMD could be effective as a bargaining chip for strategic nuclear disarmament without some level of close-in inclusion of the Chinese and Russians in the program. We must not forget that the proposed BMD is NOT intended as a defense against a Russian or Chinese attack.

As far as the ISS goes, militarizing that project seems counterproductive. What the ISS is doing, beyond its obvious research potential, is to help the US, Russia and the others learn to work together on technical issues toward a common goal. As we've seen, there are potholes and hard-knocks associated with that learning curve but working through them should lead to understanding and to trust. Those are basies for true friendship. So if lessons in cooperation learned from the ISS can be applied to other joint programs, including a BMD (or not), great.

(191 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense