 | Missile Defense #3152 - rshowalter
May 3, 2001 12:45 pm
Both the strategic and the technical arguments seem dead against NMD. But the emotional argument that we should
"do something about nuclear weapons"
is strong and deserves respect, I think. The people who want NMD have good reasons to want it (though the strategic arguments against it are powerful, too.) It does make sense to "do something about nuclear weapons"
, and if the U.S... |
| | Missile Defense #3150 - rshowalter
May 3, 2001 12:34 pm
Here's the interchange on checking between me and gisterme last night:
rshowalter 5/2/01 7:34pm
rshowalter 5/2/01 7:35pm
rshowalter 5/2/01 7:36pm
gisterme 5/2/01 7:51pm
rshowalter 5/2/01 8:04pm
rshowalter 5/2/01 8:07pm
gisterme 5/2/01 8:52pm
If the checking discussed were actually done, I think that would be constructive. I also think the presence of the dialog itself, or dialog like it, might be constructive. Nobody is going to deploy a missile defense system anytime soon... |
| | Missile Defense #3149 - rshowalter
May 3, 2001 12:23 pm
There are problems, not "guaranteed results" -
but the worst doesn't always happen, and reasonable human accomodations work, too many times to count, to sort things out. Often good results, for specific problems, do get fashioned. More often than not, actually... |
| | Missile Defense #3146 - rshowalter
May 3, 2001 11:46 am
That's a question that involves specific details. Making nuclear weapons is a good deal harder than taking a drink -- and a lot less innocent. I believe that prohibition is worth a hard, careful look -- and paying for in some limited ways... |
| | Missile Defense #3143 - rshowalter
May 3, 2001 11:28 am
We disagree on a premise. I don't think any nation ought to have a right ot have nuclear weapons. I'm ecumenical about my rejection of nuclear weapons... |
| | Missile Defense #3142 - cookiess0
May 3, 2001 11:26 am
rshowalter - 11:09am May 3, 2001 EST (#3135 of 3140) every nation has a right to maintain or have nuclear weapons. Even Iraq.
A narrow focus on select nations creates a group of haves and have nots.Thus your focus on Iraq is bigoted. |
| | Missile Defense #3141 - rshowalter
May 3, 2001 11:25 am
I'm open minded about MAD being the "best possible" way -- and about "NMD" being a good way, also -- only, facts matter. So far as I can see, current circumstances are prohibitively dangerous, and NMD only makes things worse, mostly because it cannot be done, but for strategic reasons, as well. Isn't prohibition worth thinking hard about as well? |
| | Missile Defense #3140 - rshowalter
May 3, 2001 11:22 am
Which raises the point -- if ONE nuke is set off, high up -- doesn't that neutralized any of the ABM systems being proposed? (And doesn't this ALSO do great damage to infrastructure?) |
| | Missile Defense #3139 - rshowalter
May 3, 2001 11:21 am
A nuclear explosive ABM might be practical for a few missiles -- not for many though. For one thing, after the first nuke goes off -- goodbye radar, goodbye much of the electronic infrastructure of the nations below, and, almost certainly, goodbye all the controls that would make hitting the next missile possible. Or do I have this wrong?.. |
| | Missile Defense #3138 - rshowalter
May 3, 2001 11:18 am
That's an important point. |
| | Missile Defense #3135 - rshowalter
May 3, 2001 11:09 am
I'm interested in word usages.
cookiess0 5/3/01 10:44am It hadn't occured to me that my position was bigoted. (I've worried about being wrong, but the bigotry angle hadn't concerned me -- maybe it should have.) How am I being bigoted? |
| | Missile Defense #3134 - rshowalter
May 3, 2001 11:06 am
"Nuclear weapons are technology; they will only go away when something more destructive makes them obsolete."The world is full of "technology" that doesn't get used, and other technology that gets used for a while, then supplanted. Some technical arrangements, that seemed a good idea for a while (for instance, the use of asbestos) get prohibited, when that is the reasonable thing to do. |
| | Missile Defense #3133 - cookiess0
May 3, 2001 10:44 am
rshowalter - 10:19am May 3, 2001 EST (#3129 of 3132) Your position is bigoted by the way. |
| | Missile Defense #3131 - cookiess0
May 3, 2001 10:29 am
rshowalter - 10:18am May 3, 2001 EST (#3127 of 3129) Listen pal, You need to LISTEN to others instead of flooding the forum with poetry and long rants. The more you just rant the more people will just not read some of your more interesting perspectives. You need to maintain focus... |
| | Missile Defense #3130 - rshowalter
May 3, 2001 10:21 am
Disarmament doesn't have to be an impractical and "sentimental" option. For nuclear disarmament to work, it would have to be workable ... prohibition with teeth... |
![[F]](_images/site.gif){kind=small}
New York Times on the Web Forums 
Science