New York Times on the Web Forums Science 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?
(1055 previous messages)rshowalter - 07:10pm Mar 15, 2001 EST (#1056 of 1057) Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu If "civility" means "deference to established intellectual property rights, and territorial divisions" then "civility" is the death knell of certain essential kinds of progress. Checking can be deferred, and discussion can be deferred indefinitely, especially according to the standard academic and diplomatic patterns described by John Kay in http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/highlights/essay_kay_lostcause/index.html When it is important enough, there needs to be mechanisms to get questions of fact and logic in science (or military matters) CHECKED.
When the stakes are high enough, that checking needs to be morally forcing. The idea that checking should be morally forcing seems new, and is a distinctly minority position. But for want of that ethical stance, some really terrible choices have been made in the past, and will be made in the future.
This thread has largely been about that.
There may be different ways of getting the checking done. Some suggestions have been discussed in the thread. If the moral point is granted, many different approaches to the checking could work well. Here is one, set out for scientific problems
New York Times Science in the News thread rshowalt (# 381-383) rshowalt "Science in the News" 1/4/00 7:43am
Similar patterns, variously modified, would be more than sufficient to determine the
questions of fact that must be resolved in order for our nuclear impasse to be resolved.
***** More coming.
rshowalter - 07:17pm Mar 15, 2001 EST (#1057 of 1057) Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu The specific proposal for nuclear disarmament set out in #266-269, this thread
rshowalt 9/25/00 7:32am
would not be complete in itself, but it does have some basic points in its favore -- it accommodates distrust, and clearly adresses issues of human motivation that are essential.
Russia, and other countries, would need more than this -- they'd need to have their security needs adressed, in ways that would be practical, as nation states that
cannot put themselves at the mercy of another power.
But the proposal of
rshowalt 9/25/00 7:32am
might have elements that would be involved in adressing these larger problems.
Especially when the FACT was established that the American people, as a population, and as a political entity in its ordinary function,
does not have agressive intent, so that current military policies are based, in part, on misunderstandings, and things that are not being done with the American people's informed consent.
**** more coming.
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. |