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 - 01:24pm Mar 12, 2001 EST (#953 of 956)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Very interesting !

It seems to me that, if FACTS were established, the US military rationale would be indefensible. It would have to change.

Or, if the position actually was coherent, and something that could stand the light of day, other people might come to understand it, so we'd all be safer.

I believe that if the American people actually understood that Russia and China actually are afraid of, and in effect, being threatend by, first strikes, they'd put a stop to it.

I don't think you're looking at a coherent policy of the American people, or of the American government that exists in public, either. You're looking at the products of a scared, greedy, very old, corrupt conspiracy that needs, not only for the outside world's sake, but for America's sake, to be uncovered.

It seems to me that it should be entirely practical to do this, in reasonably short order. I've got a suggestion about half drafted -- only a "thought experiment" -- but I do believe that it might suggest the elements of a solution to the basic problem -- which is uncovering hidden facts. The key point of the plan is basic. It is openness, and the presence of effective umpiring mechanisms, to show, to all reasonable people, what the facts are.

almarstel2001 - 01:28pm Mar 12, 2001 EST (#954 of 956)

Actually, there is some very funny and annoing aspect of the America's Cold War "victory" - there is a very little "treasure" found. Akin what may feel an all importand triumphant idealistic General, coming back to his country after defeating distant enemies, happily proclaimnig that there is no more enemies from now on, just to discover that in this case, no one needs him any more. His importance diminished, his role and the future in fluke. The "friends" are already dealing with who used to be enemy for their selfish benefit and even, his wife alrady left him during his absence;)

The pitty thing, once the job is declared successfully complete, the layoff may be just around the corner;)

rshowalter - 02:14pm Mar 12, 2001 EST (#955 of 956)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

I don't find the situation funny, and I don't think you do either. I expressed some of my feelings on the matter in Psychwarfare, Casablanca -- and terror http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/0

rshowalter - 02:17pm Mar 12, 2001 EST (#956 of 956)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

It seems that nobody has anwers to our most basic questions about nuclear weapons, then the world needs them.

Answers can be FORCED -- and this is especially true with the new information technologies.

Particularly in a case like this, where the stakes are such that right answers are morally forcing.

And from answers, actions should flow.

I have two things in mind.

Establishing FACTS beyond reasonable doubt - and explaining these facts very broadly.

and

Crafting a fully workable, fully complete, fully explained "draft treaty proposal" for nuclear disarmament and a more militarily stable world. Such drafting would, at the least, make for stunningly good journalism -- that could be widely syndicated among papers. Useful as that would be, I think the drafting would serve a much more useful purpose. That purpose would be actually getting the points that need to be worked out for nuclear disarmament set out coherently - - to a level where closure actually occurs. That would involve a great deal of staff work done coherently, quickly, and in coordinated fashion.

I wonder how much might be done IN PUBLIC --- say if some Moscow Times staff, and people from a couple of US papers, some Guardian staff, and people from some interested governments, started an OPEN dialog together.

With all the government involvement possible, from all the nations concerned, and with "shadow" governments set up when the government in power did not participate.

. For instance, a "shadow US government" for this purpose might have an ex President, an ex Secretary of State, ex head of the CIA, and several former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in addition to other distinguished people. rshowalter 3/1/01 4:27pm

If this involved "secret talks" it would be unworkable. But if everything was open, it would be workable.

I'm continuing to write about details, but this is the basic idea I have. I think it would work, especially if people worked on the basis of the distrust that we actually have in these matters, rather than attempt to make practical arrangements on the fiction of trust. rshowalt 9/25/00 7:32am

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense