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 - 07:16pm Apr 11, 2001 EST (#2165 of 2169)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

The Russian-German summit sounded like a very well run, successful affair. I wonder if the Queen of England would approve -- I bet she would. Russia is arguing for stability, communication, and peace -- and yes, from what I could tell, the "status exchanges" were carefully, proudly done.

I look forward to the day when MANY people will be proud to know Russians, to deal with Russians, and to find ways to cooperate with Russians.

That day seems to be coming closer, and doing so quickly.

rshowalter - 07:19pm Apr 11, 2001 EST (#2166 of 2169)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

I'm a slow man with saws, wrenches, and a soldering iron, though I got my second box finished today. And all in all, it was a hopeful day. Some things are going to be shown, in the ways that matter for human beings, "beyond a shadow of a doubt." In a real sense, shown coercively.

According to rules that really work. It won't be easy. It will, I believe, be very interesting to show how hard getting facts and ideas straight is, and how it is hard.

My reaction to the proposal for "talks" on space weapons is fairly simple. It is related to a body of related experience on nuclear disarmament, which has been "talked" about for more than thirty years, with institutional arrangements that looked like they should work.

rshowalter - 07:46pm Apr 11, 2001 EST (#2167 of 2169)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

I think the idea of a conference on peaceful cooperation in space is a beautiful, praiseworthy idea, and I have no doubt that much of it was beautiful. And that it will lay groudwork that may make much else possible, if other things are right.

All the same, it seems to me that the call for "talks" on weapons in space is premature, unless there is a coordinated, extensive, adequately staffed effort to establish the relavent facts, to closure, so that, within normal usages of decency there are facts that cannot be decently or sanely discounted, without reasons that can be clearly checked in public detail.

The "common ideas" and "commonly accepted facts" involved are not yet hard enough -- not yet completely, redundantly enough established, to justify action and justify confident, powerful moral judgement.

They can be made to be. That needs to happen.

Unless it does, I don't believe closure on a workable agreement on space weapons is even remotely possible.

Can the United States be forced to accept certain facts , and certain logical sequences , that have been solidly enough and publicly enough checked?

I think the answer is yes for a positive reason, and a negative one.

The positive reason is that the United States, very often, acts in good faith, and has an interest in complex cooperation of all kinds, all over the world.

The negative reason is that if a real case can be built for the proposition that the United States is out of touch with reality -- insane -- then there are penalties that flow, all over the world, that the United States could not withstand. Some are practical. Some involve shame, and the discomfort of being shunned.

The US may even take some perverse pleasure in being called "evil" by some "outsiders." No one in the US, with a practical interest in how decisions are really made, wants a solid case made that the US is out of touch with reality -- insane.

Attribution of insanity is a terrible penalty, that not even the US can withstand. Its nuclear weapons have little force against such attribution -- based on a solid, compelling case. The 106 countries interested in peace in space ought to go about the essential, careful steps needed to build that case.

Does the US deny facts? So do we all, when the facts are subject to reasonable question. But facts can be established beyond any reasonable doubt within specific social usages, and with respect to specific, specified evidence and rules. If THESE facts are denied, - and the facts are clear and public enough -- the argument of insanity --- which justified shunning in the practical world, can be well made.

The case that the United States is insane, on anything of importance, at the level of consensus from the leadership of 106 countries, would cost the United States more than she'd be likely to be willing to spend.

In the real world, agreement on facts is essential if conversation and cooperation are to go on. That means that determining facts is fundamental.

rshowalter - 07:54pm Apr 11, 2001 EST (#2168 of 2169)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

With evidence that ought to be organizable in very clear and compelling ways, it should be clear that the "Missile Defense" arguments the United States has been troubling the world with are either fraudulent or insane.

In the interests of peace, that case should be carefully made. And people involved with the United States case for missile defense should be held responsible for what they have done, in ways that matter to these people as the human beings that they are, and according to standards of "fairness" proportionate to the stakes involved.

I've just said something very "undiplomatic" by some standards, and very "impolite" by some other standards. These standards of "diplomacy" and "politeness," much too often, deny all human hope. Specialist in status exchange (the Queen, for example) understand very clearly when these impediments need to be swept away -- and can do it gracefully.

(1 following message)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense