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 - 01:42pm Apr 6, 2001 EST (#2064 of 2068)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

For instance, I've sent this -- but it may be glanced at -- not attended to, without somebody vouching for me. After all, I'm writing it to a very influential man, who would have to explain to others any actions he might take. And "this guy called me out of the blue" often isn't a good enough reason.

Stephen I. Schwartz Educational Foundation for Nuclear Science Executive Director

Dear Director Schwartz,

It was good to talk to you on the phone today.

I've been doing extensive postings on the NYT Science - Missile Defense Thread -- too many for you to read - though not too many for you to sample. I've been working, and a NYT employee has been working almost full time with me, since September on this thread, which involved some extensive discussion, we have reason to believe, with Bill Clinton on Sept 25, and recently with a Russian official, well backed by research facilities, who we have reason to suspect may be Vladimir Putin, or an official quite close to Putin.

We're involved in something that might reasonably be called a "courship" -- with many of the difficulties and deniabilities courtship involves. We believe that discusssions have reached a stage where real progress may be possible --- and hope to interest you, and people and organizations you know.

This email involves links to talkboard on the NYT and the Guardian Observer -- both of which are free, both of which require a registration that takes less than a minute.

rshowalter 3/31/01 3:23pm sets out a core objective of ours: 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. Perhaps 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.

rshowalter - 01:43pm Apr 6, 2001 EST (#2065 of 2068)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

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.

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.

(3 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense