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 - 02:15pm Apr 5, 2001 EST (#2008 of 2010)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Some things take discussion and staff work. So that real people can have enough time, and see things from enough angles, and ask enough questions, to come to workable, comfortable solutions. rshowalter 3/31/01 3:23pm suggests that something along the following lines might be workable.

953: rshowalter 3/12/01 1:24pm

956: rshowalter 3/12/01 2:17pm

"It seems that nobody has anwers to our most basic questions about nuclear weapons, then the world needs them. . . . Answers can be gotten by press people -- more might be accomplished after these answers were thrashed out.

Goals:

" 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. "work . . . . done IN PUBLIC --( without pseudonyms) - 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 "shadow government" teams for nonparticipants if necessary.

There are plenty of distinguished, proven people who would probably be available it this were being reasonably done. Many people care, and care a lot, about these issues.

Something along those lines might actually get the key facts straight, and get those facts widely enough understood that the VERY ugly impasse of the last decade might come to be clarified, and resolved to a form better than the terrifying and ugly situation we have today.

This might be difficult. But since we know that "alternatives" such as anti-missile defense don't work at all, it seems well worth doing.

And a lot of lies could be swept away.

rshowalter - 02:17pm Apr 5, 2001 EST (#2009 of 2010)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Any world leader, any country, any interest group, could participate. No world leader, no country, no interest group, should be let off with an assertion based on no more than bald statement.

On the internet, a great deal could be established, before witnesses, pretty quickly.

There may be "many different points of view" but on key facts, there are many fewer when people are using their real names, the statements are public, and impartial people can be asked to judge facts that are in dispute.

rshowalter - 02:21pm Apr 5, 2001 EST (#2010 of 2010)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

almarst-2001 4/5/01 2:06pm

I hope it is a thorough examination -- and that enough manuals and other information is there so that it can be clearly established what the best operational equipment cannot do.

Because "missile defense" - which worries so many, would worry people a lot less if it was clear how technically unrealistic that "technical Potempkin village" really is.

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense