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?
Mr. Bob Showalter 7205B Old Sauk Rd. Madison Wi. 53717
Dear Mr. Showalter:
I am in receipt of the materials you sent regarding a proposal
for a special in The New York Times Sunday magazine.
For the Global Security Institute to proceed with such a proposal
it would need to originate from the Times. If the
Times is indeed interested in creating a special section on
disarmament, their representatives should contact us directly at our
office.
Without this I am sorry to say that there is no possibility for
GSI participation in what you propose. Thank you for your concern
and time.
*****
I simply didn't have enough credibility for them to go forward -
or even enough credibility for them to be particularly polite. - And
the fact is, lunarchick , for reasons I understand well now,
didn't feel she could raise the matter at that time in November.
though she was working her heart out trying to advance the project,
in her world as it was. .
rshowalter
- 05:14pm Mar 15, 2001 EST (#1048
of 1053)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu
Now, if somebody who DID have status made a phone call, these
people would probably work hard, and have something to contribute.
(For a hypolthetical example, Putin could call Gorbechev, who might
call Goodall, and something might be worked out.) And if GSS didn't
get interested, other organizations would.
In stages, according to a sort of "logical incrementalism" -- and
the same could be said, I believe for news organizations --
including Ted Turner's CNN. Turner just pledged $250 million dollars
of his personal money to nuclear control efforts, and he'd do what
he could, if he had any hope that a workable relation could be put
together. The NYT would at least look at such a proposal, and so
would the Guardian, and so would some other distinguished newspapers
in the US and other places.
With the internet, the proposal of #956 rshowalter
3/12/01 2:17pm would be entirely practical. Something better
might be practical as well.
With the internet, we are in a new world.
rshowalter
- 05:17pm Mar 15, 2001 EST (#1049
of 1053)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu
# 374, Signatories of the Global Security Institute appeal as of
October 2, 2000 seem well worth listing, because I find the list
hopeful: rshowalt
10/4/00 5:08am
This list could be much augmented -- there are enough people who
want peace, and nuclear disarmament, for superb journalism and, I
believe, concrete progress.
lunarchick
- 05:53pm Mar 15, 2001 EST (#1050
of 1053)
lunarchick@www.com
Interesting here how both big money and big (American) names
aren't making progress - how so ?
lunarchick
- 06:00pm Mar 15, 2001 EST (#1051
of 1053)
lunarchick@www.com
The above may be a stupid question. Just thinking the 'bringing
down of missiles' is a political matter .. but .. the American
politicians aren't privy to the MD program workings ... and if they
know nothing much about it - because they don't want to know. Then
nothing much is going to happen.
Raises the point regarding the USA
'When was the last time that people-power actually got a reaction
from the American 'Parliament' ?
I'm using Parliament because the word is from the French verb 'to
talk' .. I don't know what the word 'congress' actually means with
respect to negotiated democracy.
lunarchick
- 06:06pm Mar 15, 2001 EST (#1052
of 1053)
lunarchick@www.com
I read these definitions carefully, thoughtfully and at one point
laughed spontaneously, as you will: http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=congress
Congress (the word) has much to do with formalities (games and
strategies) and less to do with open discussion than I would like.
rshowalter
- 06:27pm Mar 15, 2001 EST (#1053
of 1053)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu
I think a lot of progress HAS been made, at great cost of effort.
And now, people -- a lot of people, want the nuclear weapon problem,
and larger problems of peace, solved.
Some "big guns" who have been frustrated have had some
interesting things to say about why. I'd like to go back and read
them, and bring back some quotes.
But protocols have been impossible -- some basic
misunderstandings have classified solutions out of existence (for
example the notion that nuclear powers can "trust" each other) and
there haven't been mechanisms to establish questions of fact, and
get to closure.
These mechanisms are now possible, to an extent that never
existed before, because of the cooperations possible on the
internet.
I'll try, within an hour or not much more, to get more workable
answers to #1050, which might be rephrased --
"Well, if others have tried -- what makes you
think a new approach could work now?
This problem needs to be reframed, and can be.
New York Times on the Web Forums Science
Missile Defense
Enter your response, then click the POST MY MESSAGE
button below.
See the quick-edit
help for more information.