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?

lunarchick - 02:45pm Mar 6, 2001 EST (#846 of 854)
lunarchick@www.com

pgunkel1 "Science in the News" 3/5/01 1:28pm (pain beam)

almarstel2001 - 11:03pm Mar 6, 2001 EST (#847 of 854)

dirac_10 3/6/01 3:19am

Americans can sleep well knowing they have such a "brave patriot" as you are:)

dirac_10 - 03:32am Mar 7, 2001 EST (#848 of 854)

almarstel2001 - 11:03pm Mar 6, 2001 EST (#847 of 847)

Americans can sleep well knowing they have such a "brave patriot" as you are:)

I'm not in a position to do anything about it, so sleep light.

And my primary loyalty is to the human race.

rshowalter - 07:28am Mar 7, 2001 EST (#849 of 854)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Loyalty to the human race, and loyalty to the United States, ought to be the SAME in the matters we are discussing here.

Dirac , some of your statements of "FACT" are notable. We've had some run ins before. You don't happen to be defamatory to me this time - you're directing diminishing words to another. But you've questioned my competence before. Then, when called on it in ways that could actually be checked , you've retreated. Leaving the ugly assertion, but NO basis ever for getting to the truth.

The Nazis used the technique again and again, and Allied propagandists (who knew all the tricks, too) gave the technique a useful label --- THE BIG LIE .

Dirac, going through these threads, you use BIG LIE techniques again and again. It is as if you seem to feel that there IS no truth, about anything at all, and make a study of disrupting discourse, to see that nothing is ever established. And as long as nothing can be CHECKED, you're invulnerable - and there seem to be no penalties.

Most recently, in dirac_10 3/6/01 3:19am you say:

" "It's simple, we can easily stop ICBM's from minor powers from hitting the US. We would be idiots not to. The loss of NYC alone would pay for 1000 ABMs.

" "It's a done deal."

Your "it's a done deal" may be true in a sense.

(It would be INTERESTING to clarify the sense. Do you mean " the fix is in? " )

But when you say "we can easily stop IBM's from minor powers" -- with the implication that it can be done with ABMs, your making a statement "as devoid of merit as a herringfish is of fur." You're using the BIG LIE technique. You ought to submit to checking. Since the stakes here are a matter of life and death on a large scale, it ought to be morally forcing for you to do so.

Political leaders who use THE BIG LIE technique, directly or by orchestrated implication, to promote falsehoods should be checked as well. For these stakes, the checking should be morally forcing.

rshowalter - 07:31am Mar 7, 2001 EST (#850 of 854)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

almarstel2001 , I'm having to take care how I answer you. I too want our nation to be safe.

I've taken the time to discuss related issues in a thread I started, and have tended to, Emotional Peace in the Middle East on the Guardian TALK threads. That's an extensive thread, that I believe has sometimes been influential.

Here are some points that relate to this thread. http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee795fc/952 We need accomodations that permit people to LIVE, and live decently, together.

Those accomodations are going to have to include military arrangements that actually, and stably, address the security needs of the people involved.

_________

Yesterday, there was a DISTINGUISHED piece of intellectual work in the NYT, and I posted it London -- http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee795fc/956

The New Mideast Paradigm by THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

rshowalter - 07:32am Mar 7, 2001 EST (#851 of 854)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Discussions thereafter were fruitful.

rshowalter - 05:23pm Mar 6, 2001 BST (#906

You can all play tit for tat, and the impasse can go on forever, because there are plenty of negative things to say about each (all) sides, and there are an effectively limitless number of debating points, many of them persuasive on their own terms.

This situation cannot be resolved on the basis of "justice" -- the issue is too complicated.

I make that point in the Missile Defense forum --#792-797. Sometimes, "justice" simply isn't possible - because there are too many justices , with too many incompatabilities. Only a reframing, and a "redemptive solution" is workable. rshowalter 2/27/01 6:03pm

see especially #794, which includes hotkeys. rshowalter 2/27/01 6:15pm