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?

rshowalter - 12:44pm Jun 5, 2001 EST (#4514 of 4516)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

That is logical. Right answers are important here.

And trust - in the usage that "one trusts what one cannot check" is inappropriate here.

But trust in another usage, also commonly used, is necessary here. In the appropriate and necessary usage, one trusts that with which one is familiar in every detail -- one trusts what one can check in any way that seems sensible.

Trust on the basis of verifiable knowledge is safe.

"Trust" - in the sense of blind faith, without knowledge - is not something anyone reasonable should expect of the Russians, or of any other responsible people in other nations.

In matters foreign and domestic, it seems to me, the Bush administration is asking for the wrong kind of trust -- and not giving any reasonable ground, save a bully's force, in favor of that false kind of trust.

rshowalter - 01:26pm Jun 5, 2001 EST (#4515 of 4516)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

It is worth noting that here, as in other places, great weight has been placed on meaning of a word where that meaning is ambiguous -- and can imply just the opposite of what the hearer may reasonably expect.

A similar problematic word, much involved in the history of nuclear arms talks, is "threat".

rshowalter - 01:31pm Jun 5, 2001 EST (#4516 of 4516)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

MD699: rshowalter 2/17/01 2:05pm ... MD700: rshowalter 2/17/01 2:07pm
are worth setting out again here:

Dawn Riley searched the dictionary of military terms under threat , and got 36 entries. Each a http citation, not a clear definiton.

Anybody who thinks we and the Russians communicate clearly, or can predict each other SHOULD LOOK AT THIS and THINK ABOUT IT .. http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/doddict/ ......... rshowalt "Science in the News" 9/18/00 11:59am

This is the situation after nearly half a century of negotiation - gross ambiguity, inconventiently packaged, concerning a key word "threat" on which "becq" also known as "Willie_Nilly," a well briefed, key man, was either intentionally evasive, or confused. Another key work was b"trust." Trust takes understanding.

Re "Willy_Nilly" willy_nilly "Favorite Poetry" 9/23/00 10:43am

this passage was discussed with: "becq" ... MD279 rshowalt 9/25/00 3:50pm

Want to try to communicate with an enemy FAST? When a key word, that occurs in most discourse, has 36 meanings, many evasively phrased?

Mistakes could happen.

Things have been set up so that mistakes HAVE to happen. There ARE no "backchannels" that produce "hidden stability."

The "nuclear balance of terror" has always been less stable than it looked, and in the new internet era, the stability is far less than before.

The notion that the military "has this well in hand" and that we and the Russians "have an understanding" is false.

To ask nation states to stop treatening each other is a completely unrealistic and dangerous idea. That's what military forces largely do, and have to do. rshowalt "Science in the News" 9/18/00 12:04pm

We need force balances where threats, and logic sequences under threat are STABLE , or involve SURVIVABLE COSTS.

For this reason, we need to get rid of nuclear weapons, that are prone to instability and involve catastrophic losses.

When I wrote this first, on February 17 -- I said this:

"The Russians have argued this way for years.

"Gorbachev said "Even an unloaded gun goes off every once in a while."

"We've resolutely denied this obvious conclusion, based on human experience.

"The Russians, who are wrong about a helluva a lot of stuff, happen to be right here.

Now, assuming as I do that Almarst somehow knows Russian positions, the stance of the Russians has changed. -- They are still interested in total -- or at least near total nuclear disarmament -- but nuclear disarmament, and changes in nuclear balances, must depend on stability and safety for Russia and nations Russia cares about -- in terms of military balances as a whole, including weapons systems and information flows.

That's a reasonable negotiating stance, so long as "trust us" means

" You can trust us" -- because we're being straightforward and open, and you can check us.

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense