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 - 01:48pm Jun 6, 2001 EST (#4532 of 4533)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

lunarchick 6/6/01 1:02am

" ... take a look at an historical time line .. looking for the good things .. and you'll see how far forward the world has come."

Dawn's right. And I feel that this thread, because of very hard work, and much good faith, under ambivalent motivations from many quarters, has taken steps forward. Some painful, but many hopeful too.

But you can also say

" ... take a look at an historical time line .. looking for the bad things .. and you'll see, again and again, monotonously, wrenchingly, how reasonable hopes have been dashed, how people have done badly by themselves and each other -- how horror and loss and injustice that should have been avoided happened. Again and again, you'll see how accomodations that should have been constructable were not, and how forces of ugliness and evil have triumphed, in many places, and for long times - producing more horror and pain than any human mind can begin to comprehend. "

This thread has been a response to that, too.

We need to find ways to get more of the good of which man is capable, and get more wisdom, and better accomodations, so that we can more often avoid the bad. There are ways to do it.

Some of the techniques evolving on this thread offer some hope in that direction -- this thread is an attempt at something new -- a format for workable, traceable, checkable communication and negotiation between staffed organizations, with openness, and more effective memory and accomodation of complexity that was possible before.

There are many horrors. But there is some common ground, and there are some common goods. The good things that Putin hopes for, and the good things that Bush hopes for, even with all the differences, have much common ground, as well. And those good things, in the complex world that permits so much more than the over-simple models we have in our heads - ought to be, and logically can be compatible and not contradictory -- with careful accomodation - and some toughness and honesty sensibly applied by the many capable people, capable of honor, who are involved.

rshowalter - 02:22pm Jun 6, 2001 EST (#4533 of 4533)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

I thought Missile Shield Realities http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/04/opinion/04MON1.html was beautiful and constructive. The piece proposes reasonable accomodations, and credit is given where credit is due.

"The Bush administration seems to recognize that an agreement with Russia on missile defenses would help dispel European and Congressional misgivings. In recent weeks, Washington has made constructive proposals for cooperation with Moscow on related issues like early-warning radar and tactical missile defenses. But the administration has not yet addressed Russia's core concerns.

"There is ample time to pursue further diplomacy with Moscow before any defensive system is built. Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who is soon to become chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has rightly stated that whatever technology the Pentagon decides on must be thoroughly tested and shown to be reliable before funds are appropriated for construction. But some increased financing would be justified over the next few years for expanded research and testing. . . .

" That would allow the Pentagon to explore sea- based systems designed to shoot down missiles soon after they are launched, as well as refining the land- based approach pursued by the Clinton administration that is designed to intercept enemy warheads in mid-flight. Both technologies hold some promise of successful development. But neither is yet far enough advanced to justify construction of a system within the next several years, a step that would breach the ABM treaty. Space-based interceptors are a bad idea. As the country most dependent on satellites for reconnaisance and communications, America has the most to lose if space becomes a potential battlefield. . . . .

" The time needed for further testing and research should be used to try to negotiate a deal with Moscow. The administration also ought to consult further with its NATO allies and begin serious discussions with China. . .

" A narrowly targeted, technologically reliable missile defense is desirable and may be possible to develop. To produce such a system, the Bush administration must set aside its exaggerated expectations and commit itself to a program of careful testing and patient diplomacy.

Great stuff. Compatible with the interests of all concerned, as far as it goes. Respectful of fact. If we could proceed in that way -- we'd be moving in the direction of real peace.

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense