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?

gisterme - 02:26pm Jun 12, 2001 EST (#4876 of 4881)

Didn't say you were Robert. All I'm saying is that discussion that had gone on before, especially on my part, was because I misunderstood what you meant when you said "treatening to use nuclear weapons". I misinterpreted that (somehow) to think you were saying that the US had a "first strike" policy. It never did. The entire MAD paradigm is based the the threat of use of nuclear weapons. There's no point in having any kind of weapon if one can't imagine a condition where it might be used.

rshowalter - 02:36pm Jun 12, 2001 EST (#4877 of 4881)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Isn't that a great argument against having nuclear weapons?

Let me go back, and look at the context -- I've said before that we have differences of opinion -- that we both take seriously -- but there is a core of facts, where we seem to have a good deal of common ground.

About (quoting my favorite limerick, with a tense change)

" Who did what . . . and with which . . . and to whom."

rshowalter - 02:39pm Jun 12, 2001 EST (#4878 of 4881)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

If we had enough agreement about what the facts were (not interpretations so much, and not how people felt about the facts ---- but the fact themselves ) then many of the most dangerous and problematic difficulties with nuclear weapons, including missile defense, would be adressable.

almarst , for instance, isn't necessarily, and in every way, against anti-missile technology. He's against grossly disproportionate military balances, and dangerous concealment of information flows, that, in his view, threaten the security of Russia.

alty53 - 02:40pm Jun 12, 2001 EST (#4879 of 4881)

To dirac 2.5........you have explained pretty closely nothing...just more rantings about fictional laser cannons shooting down fictional missile for fictional sums of money.....therein lies the gibberish....duh......these test you speak of have never taken place let alone been successful........the problem is not how fast your "bullet" is but where to aim .... and again.......your heros want to put real nuclear tipped missiles in real space on real orbiting platforms....this is their real agenda.......duh

rshowalter - 02:43pm Jun 12, 2001 EST (#4880 of 4881)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

I don't see his problems the same way he does -- but I can see how he feels, and thinks -- and on the basis of quite reasonable interpretations of what he knows and believes he's being reasonable -- and working hard to find a solution.

Angry, too. But sometimes, at some stages in a negotiation, that can even be healthy. Especially if, at some point, all concerned in a negotiation can get scared.

Fear strips away a lot of illusions -- and some of the best solutions to lots of problems happen after fear levels are strong enough so that people keep their heads.

Almarst and his colleagues are tough, smart folks.

So are many, if not all, of the Americans involved.

As for me, let me say again that the current nuclear situation scares me very thoroughly. I think it is time to move to safer arrangements.

gisterme - 02:48pm Jun 12, 2001 EST (#4881 of 4881)

rshowalter wrote (WRT midmoon 6/12/01 9:56am ) : "...You obviously exclude the possibility the US is the one to play a role of a "gangster"..."

He did not. That was a big part of his point, Robert. You should re-read that post.

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense