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?

almarst-2001 - 03:44pm Jun 5, 2001 EST (#4517 of 4526)

rshowalter 6/5/01 1:31pm

"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."

Robert, I was talking from myself only. This position seems reasonable to me.

After the Iraq and particularelly Yugoslavia, I as American citizen may well be the last person on this planet to trust the US Government. Morover, I deeply dispise what they did, how it was presented by the media and by observing the mostly indifferent or even excited public at large. And I feel morally offended as never before in my life. More then even during the Soviet invasion of Chechoslovakia while still being a young student and a Soviet Citizen back then.

rshowalter - 04:44pm Jun 5, 2001 EST (#4518 of 4526)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

almarst , the past was monstrous, and though I understand your indignation, my own indignation is tempered by what I myself thought, and was willing to do. But if we negotiate well, the FUTURE does not have to be nearly as bad as the past.

ARMED TO EXCESS ... NYT , OpEd, March 2 http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/02/opinion/02KERR.html , is an excellent piece, made more persuasive, I believe, by the things now known about the Thanh Phong deaths.

MD2638 rshowalter 4/26/01 8:33pm . . . MD2639 rshowalter 4/26/01 8:34pm

How much agony would you expect individual missileers, in the Air Force or Navy, who by firing a single missile would kill ten to fifty thousand times as many innocents as Kerrey's unit killed that night -- with most of the deaths uglier than those at Thanh Phong ?

MD2640 rshowalter 4/26/01 8:35pm . . . MD2641 rshowalter 4/26/01 8:38pm

I took it for granted that many thousand of innocents were being slaughtered in Vietnam. I felt at the time that, considering everything at stake, that the murderousness of Vietnam was justified.

Compared to nuclear war, which was very real and very completely imagined to people I worked with, the killing of 20 innocents at close range, while wrenching and regrettable, was a small misfortune - thousands of times smaller than things we had to think about, fear, and consider ourselves capable of doing.

. . . at at time when terrorizing the Russians was a central national objective, American officers felt that America's military threat posture could not "show weakness" -- and terrible actions were even, from a certain perspective, part of reaching for a "larger good."

MD2642 rshowalter 4/26/01 8:39pm . . .

For all I know, the terrible decisions, the terrible callousness of the Cold War was justified. . . . . Perhaps the slaughter in Vietnam and elsewhere, while not just, was nonetheless not in vain. No one can know.

But the Cold War ought to be over, nuclear weapons are obsolete, morally repugnant menaces, and we should take the damn things down.

MD2643 rshowalter 4/26/01 8:41pm. . . .

Kerrey may be a liar, a monster, and a murderer. But he's got sense enough to be repelled by murder. He can count. If more Americans could rise to Kerrey's level of moral sensitivity, current grave risks to the survival of the whole world could be ended.

MD2644 rshowalter 4/26/01 8:42pm . . . MD2645 rshowalter 4/26/01 8:50pm

We ought to have the wisdom, and the wit, to find ways to get rid of the shadow of the end of the world.

And so make room for love and joy.

rshowalter - 04:48pm Jun 5, 2001 EST (#4519 of 4526)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

I feel like writing something cheerful.

So I'll suggest, as others have done, that there are other things to do with money and the military-industrial complex facilities in place, much better than building NMD systems that may not work, for a threat that may not be credible.

For example, permanently solving the global warming problem, and solving the world's energy problem in a way that would make the whole world safer and more prosperous, for centuries.

I think that, for the money being discussed for NMD, both objectives might be met. With a lot less technical risk than NMD, and largely with the same engineers. The US could do this alone, if it wished. Russia probably could, too.

Maybe not. But worth a thought. And more cheerful to think about than nuclear terror.

While I write the suggestion up, just to have something cheerful to do, here's http://www.oilcrisis.com/debate/oilcalcs.htm .

The estimate of all the conventional oil that there ever was or ever will be is less than the amount of sunlight that hits the earth in one day.

It ought to be possible to harnass enough of that, so that we can feel less need to lie, cheat, steal, and kill for oil resources.

almarst-2001 - 06:27pm Jun 5, 2001 EST (#4520 of 4526)

It could be different today. If not for the "humanitarian" bombing. That has changed it all.

The Serbs payed a high price for the World to recognize what is behind this sweet smile of the West. The smile of a master who feels he can order, buy, sell and kill anything and anyone at will with full impunity.

The "colateral damage" of "humanitarian bombing" will stay for a very long time in minds of all and bodies of some. May be forever.

On this note I quit this forum.

joy.... - 06:50pm Jun 5, 2001 EST (#4521 of 4526)

Alarmist
And Robert
Come down to science poets,
Whenever ya like too:)

(5 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense